View Full Version : NCAA Sanctions: "DP" for Penn Football, or...?
Rlaub44
07-29-2012, 05:53 PM
Penn State's reconcilable differences
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8205420/penn-state-needs-work-reconciliation
Nothing is resolved. Sandusky, Paterno, Penn State, the jackhammered statue, the Freeh report, the NCAA sanctions -- all of it rushed, unfinished, provisional. The Grand Experiment fails and the race to forget begins. The contract extension kicks in, the civil suits line up, the opportunists circle the parking lots, and we're talking about money and Hawaii and which players stay and which players go as if it were all over. Tim Curley and Gary Schultz don't have trial dates yet. Jerry Sandusky hasn't even been sentenced.
"It's time to punch back." All due respect coach, but are you out of your mind? The penalties fall and the punishments drop -- none of them even a week old -- and already the language rings defiant, as if there's been a persecution, an injustice done against Penn State football. Who are the real victims here? And who are the martyrs?...........
Where's the effort at reconciliation? The restoration of trust in your own community? Where's the contrition? Financial compensation, no matter how lavish, is not by itself restitution. Money alone heals no one. ............
That's an interesting article, and it strikes me that the media is treating all of Penn State as if it is a single solitary person that needs to be punished, rather than an entire university system consisting of thousands of students, professors, maintenance staff, a brand-new football coach and dozens of athletes that were in grade school when McQueary saw Sandusky abusing a boy and the cover-up began.
Sandusky has been found guilty, Paterno is dead and disgraced, Curley and Schultz are facing charges, McQueary is unemployed (and unemployable in football), and Spanier is undoubtably facing more consequences down the road.
The University and its football program have been hit with the most severe sanctions ever given in NCAA history (arguably comparing to the DP), and still articles like this are printed.
Apparently, even if every sentence starts with "We are sorry for the victims of this tragedy...", nobody from PSU can comment on anything, regardless of the fact that Bill O'Brien didn't abuse children or cover anything up. Football coaches need to promote their team, and he has gracefully handled lots of questions about people and problems that he has no involvement with.
It is obvious that this ESPN columnist would prefer that Penn State and its football program lay down and die, but that wasn't the punishment delivered by the NCAA, and the University is living under the constraints of this new reality. He asks,
Has a single plan been suggested for moral restoration? For spiritual restitution? Across hundreds of pages and scores of recommendations for lost scholarships and better bureaucratic checks and balances, neither Freeh nor the NCAA address the heart or the soul or the mission of the institution itself and what it might do to restore our faith in it.
Chapter 10 of the Freeh Report outlines 17 pages of recommendations for the University, and mentions that the recommendations have been shared with and well-received by the Board of Trustees. I question if ESPN's MacGregor read the entire Freeh report, or if he wants President Erickson to personally brief him on how the University plans to respond. I would imagine that the University is engaged in an ongoing dialogue about how to "morally restore", but if MacGregor thinks the answers are so simple, perhaps he should share them?
Frankly, if MacGregor is unhappy with the sanctions given to Penn State, his beef should be with the NCAA. Penn State (and Coach O'Brien) are left to prepare for the uncomfortable future, and like it or not, they do still exist and have an upcoming season to prepare for.
JMO, as always.
Pensfan
07-29-2012, 06:44 PM
Penn State's reconcilable differences
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8205420/penn-state-needs-work-reconciliation
Nothing is resolved. Sandusky, Paterno, Penn State, the jackhammered statue, the Freeh report, the NCAA sanctions -- all of it rushed, unfinished, provisional. The Grand Experiment fails and the race to forget begins. The contract extension kicks in, the civil suits line up, the opportunists circle the parking lots, and we're talking about money and Hawaii and which players stay and which players go as if it were all over. Tim Curley and Gary Schultz don't have trial dates yet. Jerry Sandusky hasn't even been sentenced.
"It's time to punch back." All due respect coach, but are you out of your mind? The penalties fall and the punishments drop -- none of them even a week old -- and already the language rings defiant, as if there's been a persecution, an injustice done against Penn State football. Who are the real victims here? And who are the martyrs?...........
Where's the effort at reconciliation? The restoration of trust in your own community? Where's the contrition? Financial compensation, no matter how lavish, is not by itself restitution. Money alone heals no one. ............
The students/staff at PSU are not responsible for the actions of Sandusky and 4 evil enablers.
Using Macgregor’s (ESPN writer) personal "theology", he (Macgregor) should immediately stop writing articles and contritely atone for the death of Trayvon Martin.
Reader
07-30-2012, 10:42 PM
Penn State hit hard, but is it enough?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/penn-state-hit-hard-but-is-it-enough-a267qe9-163605706.html
............For an organization that is usually as slow as molasses, it moved with astonishing speed; ......... Perhaps it was motivated, as Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, claimed, by the unprecedented nature of the scandal. Or perhaps it was because the organization needed to get this out of the way before the upcoming football season.
I had advocated that the NCAA impose the death penalty on Penn State, and that didn't happen. I still think Penn State should stop playing football for a while - not so much to atone, but to remind its fans and its community that football had become too important at Penn State; that football had, in fact, corrupted Penn State. I wish Rodney Erickson, the Penn State president, were willing to follow Lo Schiavo's footsteps.
But he's not going to do that; even now, football remains too important in the Happy Valley. Nor, of course, did the NCAA impose the death penalty - Emmert claims it was, in part, because innocent bystanders would be hurt. But that's a silly excuse; its sanctions invariably hurt players and others who have done nothing wrong. That is the nature of the beast............
The notion that the Penn State case is going to change all of college sports is absurd. College football almost can't help but corrode academic values. Nothing that happened Monday is going to change any of that.
Except, perhaps, at Penn State itself. Without question, the school has been shaken to its core by this scandal. It used to pretend it was better than other football programs. It can't anymore. The combination of the scandal and the sanctions create, at least, the possibility that a school that once placed football above everything else may finally learn perspective.
costalpilot
07-31-2012, 02:32 AM
Here is the original article from the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which they clearly refer to the source as a member of the Freeh team. While the Freeh committee is denying any of it's members spoke to the Chronicle, I know from personal experience that is exactly what a body will claim when a member acts outside of the auspices of the group.
I'm not saying I can prove it was a member, just that I wouldn't so readily accept the Freeh commission's denial at face value. Truthfully, how can the committee be certain none of its members broke ranks?
http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Group-Member-Criticizes/133213/
"...A member of the team that produced a 267-page report condemning the response of Pennsylvania State University's leaders to a serial child molester believes that the NCAA's use of that document was insufficient to justify the punishment it handed the university this week....."
as Reader pointed out, based solely on the loose wording in the article, the "team member" could have been anyone associated with the 'PRODUCTION " of the report, including but not limited to the interns from anywhere (Penn state maybe) that may or may not have carried copies of the report out of the offices. In any case, the 2A President plainly explained that THE NCAA had never conducted an investigation as thorough, as extensive, and as expensive as the Freeh report. so who cares what one member of the "production team" thinks about what the 2A did with it. It was a pretty large team, there was bound to be a KING FOOTBALL zealot in there somewhere. The zealots dont like it that KING FOOTBALL has been attacked. everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially anonymous "team" members. there are thousands of sportscasters across the country just as aghast as this unnamed "team member" that the 2A dared chastize KING FOOTBALL in any sort of meaningful way. Its not exactly news that many football diehards dont like a member institution like the great psu being attacked in any sort of meaningful way.
Twindad
07-31-2012, 08:06 AM
There is no legal requirement for PSU to be a member of the NCAA nor to follow its rules or accept the sanctions. If they don't like it, they can take their ball and go play elsewhere. However, PSU was quick to accept the sanctions which may be due to their belief they are getting off easy i.e. expediency . The full consequences won't be realized for several years.
waltzingmatilda
07-31-2012, 09:38 AM
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncsu/story/11372354/
Raleigh, N.C. — NC State head football coach Tom O’Brien has announced that safety Tim Buckley has joined the Wolfpack football program. The Cardinal Gibbons High School graduate, who red-shirted last season at Penn State, will begin practice at the team’s first workout on Tuesday afternoon.
I can't say that I blame the young man since he is a Raleigh native. ....and...he won't have any trouble learning his new coaches last name! (couldn't resist the dry humor, I crack me up:floorlaugh:)
moo
wm
BTW, I wasn't sure where to post this and haven't seen it in National news yet so I hope this is the correct thread.
Tipstaff
07-31-2012, 09:42 AM
Read the following on ESPN this morning - the exodus begins following Penn State sanctions.
Silas Redd, PS running back, is thinking about going to USC . Redd also didn't report back to PS for this mornings workouts.
A band and a 1,000 + fans carrying signs and shouting their support for Penn State football showed up Tuesday morning to greet players as they came for offseason workouts. Local business are also putting signs in the window supporting PS Football.
WRAL in Raleigh is reporting that backup safety Tim Buckley became the first player to transfer from Penn State and is returning to his native North Carolina to play for N.C. State.
Penn State also confirmed Monday that former starting quarterback Rob Bolden had left
ESPN also reports that several other players are at least considering transferring.
That's an interesting article, and it strikes me that the media is treating all of Penn State as if it is a single solitary person that needs to be punished, rather than an entire university system consisting of thousands of students, professors, maintenance staff, a brand-new football coach and dozens of athletes that were in grade school when McQueary saw Sandusky abusing a boy and the cover-up began.
Sandusky has been found guilty, Paterno is dead and disgraced, Curley and Schultz are facing charges, McQueary is unemployed (and unemployable in football), and Spanier is undoubtably facing more consequences down the road.
The University and its football program have been hit with the most severe sanctions ever given in NCAA history (arguably comparing to the DP), and still articles like this are printed.
Apparently, even if every sentence starts with "We are sorry for the victims of this tragedy...", nobody from PSU can comment on anything, regardless of the fact that Bill O'Brien didn't abuse children or cover anything up. Football coaches need to promote their team, and he has gracefully handled lots of questions about people and problems that he has no involvement with.
It is obvious that this ESPN columnist would prefer that Penn State and its football program lay down and die, but that wasn't the punishment delivered by the NCAA, and the University is living under the constraints of this new reality. He asks,
Has a single plan been suggested for moral restoration? For spiritual restitution? Across hundreds of pages and scores of recommendations for lost scholarships and better bureaucratic checks and balances, neither Freeh nor the NCAA address the heart or the soul or the mission of the institution itself and what it might do to restore our faith in it.
Chapter 10 of the Freeh Report outlines 17 pages of recommendations for the University, and mentions that the recommendations have been shared with and well-received by the Board of Trustees. I question if ESPN's MacGregor read the entire Freeh report, or if he wants President Erickson to personally brief him on how the University plans to respond. I would imagine that the University is engaged in an ongoing dialogue about how to "morally restore", but if MacGregor thinks the answers are so simple, perhaps he should share them?
Frankly, if MacGregor is unhappy with the sanctions given to Penn State, his beef should be with the NCAA. Penn State (and Coach O'Brien) are left to prepare for the uncomfortable future, and like it or not, they do still exist and have an upcoming season to prepare for.
JMO, as always.
I completely agree with this. I do not think a day has passed since last November that I do not think about the victims and feel my heart break for them a little more each time.
But while the outside perspective makes it so that Penn State and Sandusky are synonymous, my perspective as an alumni is that there are 680,000+ alumni, and 40,000+ students, plus the faculty and staff. The individuals acted as individuals, and to say that we all deserve blame and credit for being part of the same community is like blaming an entire city for the transgressions of its mayor.
So many of the people I see blaming the football culture are part of their own football culture, which is significantly worse than the Penn State one, where people value academics more than winning records, and put more of an emphasis on integrity than winning. If they really buy what they are selling, that the love of football is to blame, why are they still posting their own expressions of loyalty for their own teams? If you really believe that loyalty and enthusiasm for football leads to child sex abuse and resulting cover-ups, why would you continue to have loyalty and enthusiasm for football?
Anyway, that's my little rant. Supporting Penn State football is not, IMO, supporting Sandusky, or even the others (MM, JVP, GS, TC). It is supporting the student athletes and fellow alumni who love Penn State for a myriad of reasons that include, but are not limited to, football.
For the people who are unfamiliar with the Penn State football fan experience, but who are taking the "seen one overzealous football school, seen them all" attitude, you may have been surprised if your introduction to Penn State football had been a few years ago. One of the reasons the Penn State fan base has reacted this way is that we were one of the few schools who had the degree of enthusiasm and support for our team, without the winning above all attitude. As. J.J. pointed out, we packed the stadium in losing seasons. During those losing seasons, we sat around in the tailgate lot and local bars and discussed what it would take to cause us to lose our pride, and the consensus was that most of the pride in football focused on the way the football program operated not the wins or losses. Things like academics first, our graduation rate, the refusal to recruit great players who could not pass Penn State classes, and the little things like not celebrating in the end zone, politely handing the ball to the ref, treating opposing teams with politeness. My fellow alumni were more angry and disappointed at games we won, but where we witnessed some of the freshmen (who had not yet been indoctrinated) behaving like other schools' fans--trash talking opponents, throwing things at people. If we came out of a loss with no penalties, we were still proud.
Part of the indignation is that we worked hard to have a different kind of program, and a different kind of fan base, and that has been ignored and obliterated in the wake of all of this. We are actually being punished for valuing integrity and academics, but nobody is admitting that. We held JoePa up because he purported to run his program on those values, not because he won football games. While he made mistakes here, we had no way of knowing. Not one inkling. We understood the "king football" that another poster keeps referencing, and we consciously rejected that for ourselves. Now we are being painted with the brush of that mentality because there is an assumption that if we loved our team, we must be just like every other fan base that loved their team, only worse, because one of our former coaches was a pedophile, and the one we admired did not report it.
There have been other sex abuse scandals that were more widespread, involving more abusers and more victims, and I do not see the same level of judgment on the uninvolved members of those organizations. Where are the people calling for the Catholic Church to close their doors for a few years? Insisting that the congregations of the churches created an environment ripe for sex abuse of children and cover-up, and thus every Catholic in the country who does not reject their religion should be called a pedophile? How about USA Swimming? Why aren't we burning at the stake every American who cheers on a USA swimmer?
Twindad
07-31-2012, 12:42 PM
When a peson is depicted as in the mural, with a halo, people tend to believe those whom created and supported it agreed at some level with the sentiment. Penn State football and Joe Paterno are not holy or righteous, as depicted. To many peoples detriment, they seemed to assign their values and beliefs assuming Penn State shared these. It appears a deeper scrutiny has revealed Penn State, as represented by Paterno, Spanier and others did not share these values. They used others values as a cloak to hide their real intentions.
While the football program gets the most attention, there are other programs of Penn State which have revealed these same intentions. Penn State certainly used the same M.O. to deal with Michael Mann, Antonio Lasada, Kenneth Kyle and John Neisworth for instance, with more to lose than the current situation.
While there have been worse sex abuse cases than this, it would appear Penn State needs to get its own house in order before it goes pointing fingers at others. Otherwise it seems diversionary and an ostrich like head in the sand behavior to those "on the outside".
Maybe one day, "We are Penn State" will stand for more than self importance and self righteousness.
When a peson is depicted as in the mural, with a halo, people tend to believe those whom created and supported it agreed at some level with the sentiment. Penn State football and Joe Paterno are not holy or righteous, as depicted. To many peoples detriment, they seemed to assign their values and beliefs assuming Penn State shared these. It appears a deeper scrutiny has revealed Penn State, as represented by Paterno, Spanier and others did not share these values. They used others values as a cloak to hide their real intentions.
While the football program gets the most attention, there are other programs of Penn State which have revealed these same intentions. Penn State certainly used the same M.O. to deal with Michael Mann, Antonio Lasada, Kenneth Kyle and John Neisworth for instance, with more to lose than the current situation.
While there have been worse sex abuse cases than this, it would appear Penn State needs to get its own house in order before it goes pointing fingers at others. Otherwise it seems diversionary and an ostrich like head in the sand behavior to those "on the outside".
Maybe one day, "We are Penn State" will stand for more than self importance and self righteousness.
I'm not pointing fingers. I'm asking why is Penn State being treated differently? Why are all the 680,000+ alumni and 40,000+ students being lumped in with those who actually committed crimes or had knowledge of crimes? Saying that Penn State is culpable is like saying Catholics are culpable for the abuses committed by their priests. It is absolutely an appropriate analogy. They looked up to their leaders, they considered them above such behavior, should they be blamed for their trust and loyalty? Should it be demanded that they lose the loyalty they have to the entire organization and their fellow Catholics?
Or can we accept that they had good intentions, but they were fooled, not because of some character flaw of their own, but because of some particularly devious individuals who hid within the walls of their organization? Can we allow them to keep their faith, their relationships, and their bonds with the good guys within the organization, to sift through and pick out that is worth saving without having to lump it all into one giant trash heap?
J. J. in Phila
07-31-2012, 02:22 PM
I'm not pointing fingers. I'm asking why is Penn State being treated differently? Why are all the 680,000+ alumni and 40,000+ students being lumped in with those who actually committed crimes or had knowledge of crimes? Saying that Penn State is culpable is like saying Catholics are culpable for the abuses committed by their priests. It is absolutely an appropriate analogy. They looked up to their leaders, they considered them above such behavior, should they be blamed for their trust and loyalty? Should it be demanded that they lose the loyalty they have to the entire organization and their fellow Catholics?
Or can we accept that they had good intentions, but they were fooled, not because of some character flaw of their own, but because of some particularly devious individuals who hid within the walls of their organization? Can we allow them to keep their faith, their relationships, and their bonds with the good guys within the organization, to sift through and pick out that is worth saving without having to lump it all into one giant trash heap?
Some of it is because you have people standing up saying "Joe did nothing wrong," when there is evidence that he did. You initially had the same thing with Sandusky. You have it with a few people with Gricar. People don't like legacy protection.
Some of it is because you have people standing up saying "Joe did nothing wrong," when there is evidence that he did. You initially had the same thing with Sandusky. You have it with a few people with Gricar. People don't like legacy protection.
I have not seen or heard anyone defend Sandusky.
I have defended, and have seen others defend, Paterno and Gricar. I do not think that is any different from other scandals. It's just part of the way we process information that does not fit in with our prior knowledge. We require a higher standard of proof than someone who has not prior knowledge and is hearing about an individual or organization for the first time.
Rlaub44
07-31-2012, 03:32 PM
Some of it is because you have people standing up saying "Joe did nothing wrong," when there is evidence that he did. You initially had the same thing with Sandusky. You have it with a few people with Gricar. People don't like legacy protection.
I have not seen or heard anyone defend Sandusky.
I have defended, and have seen others defend, Paterno and Gricar. I do not think that is any different from other scandals. It's just part of the way we process information that does not fit in with our prior knowledge. We require a higher standard of proof than someone who has not prior knowledge and is hearing about an individual or organization for the first time.
Also, there is a middle ground, where some of us can admit that Paterno and Gricar made mistakes and had horrible lapses in judgment, but it doesn't necessarily mean they were terrible individuals.
Most of the media have determined through inference what Paterno thought and what he must have told Curley, and then generalized that to how he must always have been a hypocrite, and that even his lifestyle, generous donations and manner of inspiring young men were all a facade, covering up for the evil man they seem to believe he always was.
I understand and agree that his legacy is forever tarnished, but as rlc commented, those of us who followed PSU (and yes, Paterno) for many years tend to see this action as the anomaly, not the entirety of who he was.
J. J. in Phila
07-31-2012, 04:15 PM
I have not seen or heard anyone defend Sandusky.
I have defended, and have seen others defend, Paterno and Gricar. I do not think that is any different from other scandals. It's just part of the way we process information that does not fit in with our prior knowledge. We require a higher standard of proof than someone who has not prior knowledge and is hearing about an individual or organization for the first time.
I did, when Ganim first wrote the story on 3/31/11. It was:
"This is not the time for all you Penn State haters to spread your crap. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty except with PSU haters and this paper. Coach Sandusky like many teachers and parents are accused wrongly by children. I do not believe Coach could do harm to a child and maybe this reporter should now pound the pavement and check with the other coaches, teachers of this accuser. Coach Sandusky spent too many years and his own money helping children and these allegations are just that, allegations. A he said,he said. I stand on Coach Sandusky's side. "
"All you Penn State Haters listen to this. You are just envious of people who exemplify integrity and follow the "Golden Rule." I had an experience witnessing Mr Sandusky at the outside Natatorium with a crowd of his Second Mile kids. I heard all of this noise and cheering and I looked up and Jerry was on the tallest platform diving board. The Second Mile Kids were chanting "JERRY, JERRY!" It was very heart warming. I also had contact with him in a professional business venue. He is a kind and humble man. Remember what goes around comes around and this smacks of extortion to me."
"I really think it is irresponsible journalism to publish this before the facts are in....Innocent until proven guilty..If he is proven to be not guilty he should sue for liable. Here is a man that has dedicated his life to helping others and this story has just ruined his reputation even if he is innocent. Why publish this until all the facts are out..you are just looking for sensationalism to sell you papers...disgusting disgusting...I sure hope he is cleared and then you will have some crow to eat!"
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
J. J. in Phila
07-31-2012, 09:45 PM
Also, there is a middle ground, where some of us can admit that Paterno and Gricar made mistakes and had horrible lapses in judgment, but it doesn't necessarily mean they were terrible individuals.
Most of the media have determined through inference what Paterno thought and what he must have told Curley, and then generalized that to how he must always have been a hypocrite, and that even his lifestyle, generous donations and manner of inspiring young men were all a facade, covering up for the evil man they seem to believe he always was.
I understand and agree that his legacy is forever tarnished, but as rlc commented, those of us who followed PSU (and yes, Paterno) for many years tend to see this action as the anomaly, not the entirety of who he was.
BBM.
I think that the "defenders" reaction produced the vitriol that we have seen against Paterno. Now, when the story broke, I was one of the people who said that Paterno should retire at the end of the season, when a number of others here were saying he should be fired. There were a number of people who disagreed here, and now I think I was wrong and they were right. I did not question the board's decision.
What happened? A riot in State College. Numerous people (not here) but Penn State fanatics wanted the BoT out. Numerous illustrious alumni signed a petition on how terrible the BoT was for firing him: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/12/penn-state-donor-support-joe-paterno/1#.UBiAiaOCnCY One gets elected to the BoT because of the outrage and wants "justice" for Paterno.
Paterno dies. He's eulogized by Knight who says: "Whatever the details of the investigation are, this much is clear to me: There was a villain in this tragedy. It lies in the investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response to it.” He gets a standing ovation. A halo is painted over his head in the mural.
How do think people would react to this? Here is someone that has a great deal of moral authority on campus, and doesn't ask the people in charge, *Well, was my GA lying to me when he said something improper was going on? Was he delusional?* Those are things that an semi-competent administrator would ask; that was just the follow through. How do fans react? Put a halo over him! That is just before the Freeh report.
People might have reacted better if some of these lunkheads had not been standing up and saying that Paterno couldn't possibly be wrong. Not, *Well, let's wait until we get proof,* (which was me) but, *The proof is a lie, they are all lying, they all hate Penn State because we are so good.* They are the ones that are now destroying Paterno's legacy.
[/rant] :banghead: :)
Legacy protection never works. It also makes things worse!
That is not directed at you Rlaub44. You are not one of the lunkheads. And I will be the first to say that I admired Paterno for putting athletics before sports.
Rlaub44
07-31-2012, 10:20 PM
BBM.
I think that the "defenders" reaction produced the vitriol that we have seen against Paterno. Now, when the story broke, I was one of the people who said that Paterno should retire at the end of the season, when a number of others here were saying he should be fired. There were a number of people who disagreed here, and now I think I was wrong and they were right. I did not question the board's decision.
What happened? A riot in State College. Numerous people (not here) but Penn State fanatics wanted the BoT out. Numerous illustrious alumni signed a petition on how terrible the BoT was for firing him: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/12/penn-state-donor-support-joe-paterno/1#.UBiAiaOCnCY One gets elected to the BoT because of the outrage and wants "justice" for Paterno.
Paterno dies. He's eulogized by Knight who says: "Whatever the details of the investigation are, this much is clear to me: There was a villain in this tragedy. It lies in the investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response to it.” He gets a standing ovation. A halo is painted over his head in the mural.
How do think people would react to this? Here is someone that has a great deal of moral authority on campus, and doesn't ask the people in charge, *Well, was my GA lying to me when he said something improper was going on? Was he delusional?* Those are things that an semi-competent administrator would ask; that was just the follow through. How do fans react? Put a halo over him! That is just before the Freeh report.
People might have reacted better if some of these lunkheads had not been standing up and saying that Paterno couldn't possibly be wrong. Not, *Well, let's wait until we get proof,* (which was me) but, *The proof is a lie, they are all lying, they all hate Penn State because we are so good.* They are the ones that are now destroying Paterno's legacy.
[/rant] :banghead: :)
Legacy protection never works. It also makes things worse!
That is not directed at you Rlaub44. You are not one of the lunkheads. And I will be the first to say that I admired Paterno for putting athletics before sports.
I don't think I could possibly agree more with what you wrote here. Very well said.
BigCat
07-31-2012, 11:13 PM
BBM.
I think that the "defenders" reaction produced the vitriol that we have seen against Paterno. Now, when the story broke, I was one of the people who said that Paterno should retire at the end of the season, when a number of others here were saying he should be fired. There were a number of people who disagreed here, and now I think I was wrong and they were right. I did not question the board's decision.
What happened? A riot in State College. Numerous people (not here) but Penn State fanatics wanted the BoT out. Numerous illustrious alumni signed a petition on how terrible the BoT was for firing him: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/12/penn-state-donor-support-joe-paterno/1#.UBiAiaOCnCY One gets elected to the BoT because of the outrage and wants "justice" for Paterno.
Paterno dies. He's eulogized by Knight who says: "Whatever the details of the investigation are, this much is clear to me: There was a villain in this tragedy. It lies in the investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response to it.” He gets a standing ovation. A halo is painted over his head in the mural.
How do think people would react to this? Here is someone that has a great deal of moral authority on campus, and doesn't ask the people in charge, *Well, was my GA lying to me when he said something improper was going on? Was he delusional?* Those are things that an semi-competent administrator would ask; that was just the follow through. How do fans react? Put a halo over him! That is just before the Freeh report.
People might have reacted better if some of these lunkheads had not been standing up and saying that Paterno couldn't possibly be wrong. Not, *Well, let's wait until we get proof,* (which was me) but, *The proof is a lie, they are all lying, they all hate Penn State because we are so good.* They are the ones that are now destroying Paterno's legacy.
[/rant] :banghead: :)
Legacy protection never works. It also makes things worse!
That is not directed at you Rlaub44. You are not one of the lunkheads. And I will be the first to say that I admired Paterno for putting athletics before sports.
Very well written. And I agree, Rlaub44 is definitely not one of the "lunkheads" (I refer to them as the "bitter clingers"). Some of the posts I have read on Penn State football message boards have tested my faith in humanity. I hope for the university's sake they are just a vocal minority.
I should add that I've also read posts by a courageous few who attempted to offer a dissenting perspective. They are to be commended. It go so bad at one point that a poster who dared questioned Paterno's actions was called out by name, on an anonymous message board, by Anthony Lubrano, a member of the Penn State BOT. Well, he wasn't a member at the time. He is now, and he has since toned down his act.
The actions of the lunkheads certainly justify the reactions to the lunkheads.
But if people cannot comprehend that even a thousand lunkheads do not represent all of Penn State, and cannot comprehend that there is another view, in which we admit that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier are not innocent, but also do not represent all of Penn State...if they cannot take the time find out what Penn State is about instead of accepting the lunkheads as representative, then they are the lunkheads of the other side.
I honestly question if any of the people who judge students who poured into streets to be together at that time had the maturity they expected from those students. I'm not talking about the handful who engaged in vandalism. The ones whose identities I have heard are freshmen, and locals who were not even students there, including at least one middle-aged man who was not an alumni. I am talking about the hundreds who were reeling from all that had been thrown at them in a matter of days. How can people judge them for not having compassion for victims when they themselves have no compassion for 19-year-olds who are trying to process information that adults struggle to process? Within days, when emotion settled and enough information had been presented, more than a quarter of the campus, more than five times the number of people who had been in the street that night, and more than 500 times the number who had actually engaged in vandalism, attended a candelight vigil for the victims.
As for people protesting the firing of Paterno, I am fairly certain I did not sign the petition because, like you, I wanted more information. But I can say that my disbelief, combined with the quick decision and the lack of information, made me believe the firing was wrong at the time. I did believe his decades of good earned him the right to be innocent until proven guilty. While I can acknowledge now, with the information that has come out, that he should have been fired, I do not consider it a lunkhead response to have given him that benefit of the doubt.
Call me a lunkhead if you would like, but people are judging simple human reactions as evil, malicious, self-absorbed. They are fooling themselves, like Penn State fans fooled ourselves, if they believe that they are above that kind of thing, that in a similar situation, they would see the truth immediately, be able to discard all of their previous knowledge and understanding of a person, and accept them for who they are instantaneously.
J. J. in Phila
08-01-2012, 09:33 AM
The actions of the lunkheads certainly justify the reactions to the lunkheads.
But if people cannot comprehend that even a thousand lunkheads do not represent all of Penn State, and cannot comprehend that there is another view, in which we admit that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier are not innocent, but also do not represent all of Penn State...if they cannot take the time find out what Penn State is about instead of accepting the lunkheads as representative, then they are the lunkheads of the other side.
I'm snipping for length, respectfully.
I'm looking at the reactions prior to the Freeh Report.
Paterno fired: A few thousand students protest and, yes, some riot. Lubrano gets elected to the board; he wants "justice" (and he might get without the quotes) for Paterno.
Paterno dies: He is publicly canonized with a halo and Knight says how great he was and how terrible the board is. (Both are effectively reversed.) The board talks about possible honors for Paterno, and the borough considers naming a street after him (reversed).
If you are watching this from the outside, what would you think? Heck, if are watching the Devil on Saturday Night Live, what would you think!
The actions, or inactions, of Schultz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno gave Penn State's reputation a black eye. The response of these people knocked out all of its teeth and broke its arm.
Call me a lunkhead if you would like, but people are judging simple human reactions as evil, malicious, self-absorbed. They are fooling themselves, like Penn State fans fooled ourselves, if they believe that they are above that kind of thing, that in a similar situation, they would see the truth immediately, be able to discard all of their previous knowledge and understanding of a person, and accept them for who they are instantaneously.
I had to, in about a week, with RFG, even while citing those cases to show that it wasn't typical. Now, you are free to call me logical and cold, but I was stunned, not that Gricar was involved in 1998, but it was such a strong case, and that charges were brought on it, with less evidence, in 2011.
In the case of some of these people, the halo, the election of Lubrano, the continued defense of Paterno, this happened months afterward. It wasn't an emotional response, but a calculated one.
I think a week is perfectly reasonable, depending on the relationship you have with a person. If your initial impression was based on logic and information, and not personal interaction, then logic and information should do the trick within a few days.
Others who have a more personal relationship with an individual, in combination with all of the public knowledge, will probably take much longer. That does not say anything negative about their character. I would hope that my friends and family would need more than one news report to convict me in their minds. It took me longer. JVP was not just someone I never met who seemed like a really cool guy. My personal interaction with him had a significant impact on my life's path. Same with RFG. The interactions were limited, neither man would remember me, but both had a significant impact. In addition to just stripping the knowledge, I had to question the advice that formed the basis for a career path because of the source's bad choices.
Most of what is being judged and used as evidence of Penn State's malice are initial reactions. Within days. We keep hearing about the riot. Some idiotic comments on message boards. Two college students who camped out to protect the statue.
We do not hear about the vigil. The 500k raised for RAINN, the unknown totals for PCAR and other organizations. We do not hear about the letters to victims, or the student group who has created and promoted legislation making it a legal requirement for any adult to report child abuse. We do not hear about the number of alumni who have reached out to their local organizations to support the prevention of child sex abuse, either to learn more about recognizing and reporting abuse, or to offer money and time. We have been, and will continue to be, judged on initial reactions.
Our reaction to unfavorable information about someone whom we held a deeply favorable opinion was to try to fit that information into our existing knowledge (confusion), then deny (anger and indignation), then break down our previous knowledge and rebuild a new image for those people that acknowledged what they had done. The thing is, I cannot understand why people who knew nothing about Penn State at all can judge an entire university, its students, fans, and alumni, on the basis of the initial, very understandable from a psychological standpoint, reactions of a small percentage, and the not-so-understandable reactions of a miniscule minority, some of whom never even attended the school. They are using those judgments to form the basis of their impression of our community, and judging us on that impression on everything we do subsequently. Same basic process of information assimilation that we went through with Paterno, but with a hugely different scale. Instead of decades of knowledge about Penn State, their previous impression is based on a few highly emotional days.
My heart breaks for the victims, and I have sought out ways to support them, and have not ignored one single effort, except the candlelight vigil that I could not physically attend. I feel helpless in many ways, because nothing can take away their experiences. On the other hand, I am far more knowledge about child sex abuse, what to look for, when and how to report it, who to call if I have suspicions but am not sure and am afraid of ruining someone's life with unfounded accusations.
I will not stop supporting my fellow alumni, or the students of my alma mater, including student athletes, because they were betrayed by a handful of leaders. There are too many good things about the Penn State culture to discard it all. The academics, the philanthropy, the sense of being able to enter such a huge population, but still make a difference, the sense of activism, the team player attitude, some of which originated with the football program, but has since grown to initiate things like THON (but not limited to THON. THON is the university-wide philanthropy and gets used the most, but when I was a student there, almost every student group also had their own, smaller scale philanthropy). I want my fellow alumni to be able to hold onto those good things, and keep them going for the students.
Football games are not just about football. It is a time to pack students and alumni together into one venue, to celebrate, solidify, and perpetuate certain ideals. Just because the man to whom we credit those ideals did not fulfill them in the end does not mean the ideals do not exist among the students and alumni, or are not worth perpetuating. If we stopped attending football games, we would probably never end up with a cohesive effort involving the entire Penn State community. Anyone who does not understand what I mean by that probably never really appreciated the football experience for what it is. The opportunity to share ideas, knowledge, life experiences across several generations of people who love Penn State.
Sorry I went off on a tangent and did not finish one of my thoughts in response to you.
Regarding the more recent stuff: The halo was one artist, and it was my understanding that it was because he was dead, not an effort to make him out to be a saint.
The unwillingness to accept, on the basis of available evidence, that Paterno engaged in an intentional cover-up to protect his football program is not on the same page as saying that Paterno did nothing wrong and did everything he is supposed to do. The evidence shows that he knew about it, and based on that, we can acknowledge that he failed. The rest of what people want us to accept: that he intentionally tried to obstruct justice, and that his motivation was the protection of the football program, is not consistent with what we know. We know he did not put football first. It is far more likely that his motivation was in protecting Sandusky's family, or the university, or his reputation of running a clean program. But attributing the motivation to any of those things makes him an individual who acted horribly, and does not allow people to blame a football culture gone awry. I argue the point about Paterno not as defense of HIM but as defense of US. If the NCAA and the media, and the public ignorant of Penn State had not tried to pin it on the entire community, there would be much less defensiveness. We could all agree that one man was a monster who fooled us all, several others had significant moral and legal failings, and we need to move forward in the best way we can to support the victims and prevent this from happening again.
J. J. in Phila
08-01-2012, 10:59 AM
Sorry I went off on a tangent and did not finish one of my thoughts in response to you.
Regarding the more recent stuff: The halo was one artist, and it was my understanding that it was because he was dead, not an effort to make him out to be a saint.
Widely applauded, and do they normally put halos on dead people?
The unwillingness to accept, on the basis of available evidence, that Paterno engaged in an intentional cover-up to protect his football program is not on the same page as saying that Paterno did nothing wrong and did everything he is supposed to do. The evidence shows that he knew about it, and based on that, we can acknowledge that he failed. The rest of what people want us to accept: that he intentionally tried to obstruct justice, and that his motivation was the protection of the football program, is not consistent with what we know. We know he did not put football first.
And there are still people who won't even go that far; there is a thread on an alumni group about how wrong the Freeh report it. Someone said that the e-mail was "speculation." The e-mail is fact; what happened at the 2/26/01 meeting is speculation.
It is far more likely that his motivation was in protecting Sandusky's family, or the university, or his reputation of running a clean program. But attributing the motivation to any of those things makes him an individual who acted horribly, and does not allow people to blame a football culture gone awry. I argue the point about Paterno not as defense of HIM but as defense of US. If the NCAA and the media, and the public ignorant of Penn State had not tried to pin it on the entire community, there would be much less defensiveness. We could all agree that one man was a monster who fooled us all, several others had significant moral and legal failings, and we need to move forward in the best way we can to support the victims and prevent this from happening again.
I won't speculate on the motive, since it lacks evidence. I think it should be about "HIM" but these people have made it about "US." Paterno is criticized, so WE are criticized. To many of his defenders, Paterno is synonymous with Penn State. He should never have been. Some of that is his fault, some of that is the administrator's fault, but most of it is OUR fault.
costalpilot
08-01-2012, 12:03 PM
Sorry I went off on a tangent and did not finish one of my thoughts in response to you.
Regarding the more recent stuff: The halo was one artist, and it was my understanding that it was because he was dead, not an effort to make him out to be a saint.
The unwillingness to accept, on the basis of available evidence, that Paterno engaged in an intentional cover-up to protect his football program is not on the same page as saying that Paterno did nothing wrong and did everything he is supposed to do. The evidence shows that he knew about it, and based on that, we can acknowledge that he failed. The rest of what people want us to accept: that he intentionally tried to obstruct justice, and that his motivation was the protection of the football program, is not consistent with what we know. We know he did not put football first. It is far more likely that his motivation was in protecting Sandusky's family, or the university, or his reputation of running a clean program. But attributing the motivation to any of those things makes him an individual who acted horribly, and does not allow people to blame a football culture gone awry. I argue the point about Paterno not as defense of HIM but as defense of US. If the NCAA and the media, and the public ignorant of Penn State had not tried to pin it on the entire community, there would be much less defensiveness. We could all agree that one man was a monster who fooled us all, several others had significant moral and legal failings, and we need to move forward in the best way we can to support the victims and prevent this from happening again.
about your two points I bolded:
1. you bend over a long way backwards to ascribe honorable motives to dishonorable actions. in effect you are saying, Joe allowed boy after boy to be raped and molested because he is a great guy who looks after his friends, not because he cared about himself. apparently that makes sense to you and somehow makes you feel better about being a stater.
2. so, you really believe that the ncaa, the media and the dumbies who just dont get psu football "tried to pin it on the entire community"?
thats what you believe?
I agree a monster fooled you. I dont blame you or your community for it. the monster wasnt sandusky. it was his multi headed enablers, the men who allowed him to use your facilities for his own evil purposes. and looked the other way: paterno. schultz. curley. sandusky was the evil. they were his enablers. i dont care to squabble over their motives.
costalpilot
08-01-2012, 12:15 PM
I have been to the penn state football board. After the dust has settled, they have settled on two principle enemies of the program:
1.Mark Emmert , president of the ncaa
2. Graham Spanier, president of penn state.
they are mad at emmert for sanctioning them and they are mad at spanier for accepting the sanctions.
almost nothing to say about sandusky or paterno. apparently they are trying to move on.
about your two points I bolded:
1. you bend over a long way backwards to ascribe honorable motives to dishonorable actions. in effect you are saying, Joe allowed boy after boy to be raped and molested because he is a great guy who looks after his friends, not because he cared about himself. apparently that makes sense to you and somehow makes you feel better about being a stater.
2. so, you really believe that the ncaa, the media and the dumbies who just dont get psu football "tried to pin it on the entire community"?
thats what you believe?
I agree a monster fooled you. I dont blame you or your community for it. the monster wasnt sandusky. it was his multi headed enablers, the men who allowed him to use your facilities for his own evil purposes. and looked the other way: paterno. schultz. curley. sandusky was the evil. they were his enablers. i dont care to squabble over their motives.
Where did I say that if he covered up child sexual abuse to protect a friend that would make him a great guy? Covering it up speaks for itself, it's wrong for any motivation. When people become defensive at the statement "Paterno covered up child abuse for the sake of Penn State football" it carries with it the mistruths that have been spouted lately that the fans created an environment that put football first.
What I am saying is that the Penn State community, the student, the alumni, the fans, gave him absolutely no reason to think that he would have to cover up child sex abuse in order to protect the football program. It's not a defense of Paterno. It's a defense of the Penn State community, who is being bashed at the moment for having any love left for their school, including the football team. As evidence of the fact that the fans never pressured Paterno to put football first, I point to his years of not putting football first, of putting academics and the wellbeing of his players first, and the loyalty that remained and even grew during his "experiment".
Yes, I think the NCAA tried to pin it on an imaginary "culture" that they attribute to the fans. They said so, in their statement. That this is to change the culture of Penn State football because it enabled child rape. The culture of Penn State football was not one that would have condoned child rape, or encouraged the cover-up of child rape. It never was, it never will be. The Penn State culture was one that placed integrity, and academics, and the wellbeing of youth ahead of football. The people who acted did so in contradiction to the Penn State culture, not because of it. But the culture was used as justification for the NCAA sanctions. And you do not have to look far to see people who are tearing at Penn State fans who dare to support their school.
costalpilot,
I would also like to point out that you bolded two points, leaving in between them the statement that any of those other motivations are still horrible.
J. J. in Phila
08-01-2012, 01:06 PM
I have been to the penn state football board. After the dust has settled, they have settled on two principle enemies of the program:
1.Mark Emmert , president of the ncaa
2. Graham Spanier, president of penn state.
they are mad at emmert for sanctioning them and they are mad at spanier for accepting the sanctions.
almost nothing to say about sandusky or paterno. apparently they are trying to move on.
Spanier "resigned" in November; Erickson is the President. They actually should be angry at Spanier.
The first part of solving the problem is admitting you have a problem. Some of the people don't, and that is where the hostility starts. It revolts people. That is why I keep saying: Legacy protection never works. Arguably, the defensive actions of those people supporting Paterno have hurt Paterno's legacy, and have probably done more to hurt Penn State's reputation than the act.
This is literally Nixonian. I've never seen actual evidence that Nixon planned, authorized, or knew about the actual break in, in advance. He clearly attempted to cover it up after the fact. That is what led to his downfall.
If everyone stood up and said, "Paterno was wrong. He made some mistakes. We need to fix this, and yes, there should be some punishment," we wouldn't have this PR problem. :banghead:
"If everyone stood up and said, "Paterno was wrong. He made some mistakes. We need to fix this, and yes, there should be some punishment," we wouldn't have this PR problem."
That's not true. I have seen it repeatedly. People admit that Paterno screwed up, and get blasted for not using harsher language. People can claim that they are not blaming anyone but the individuals involved out of one side of their mouth, but out of the other side are making statements about "King Football" that make it clear they see this as a football issue, not an issue of individuals who engaged in a range of bad behavior. People skip over articles about good things that some Penn State fans are doing to focus on the few who will not admit any mistake. People go to a Penn State football board, and think that people talking about the aspects of the scandal that impact Penn State football on a Penn State football forum only care about how it affects Penn State football.
People enjoy believing the worst of each other, and enjoying focusing on the worst in others. This scandal has taught me many things, but that is one of the most overwhelming ones.
J. J. in Phila
08-01-2012, 03:07 PM
"If everyone stood up and said, "Paterno was wrong. He made some mistakes. We need to fix this, and yes, there should be some punishment," we wouldn't have this PR problem."
That's not true. I have seen it repeatedly. People admit that Paterno screwed up, and get blasted for not using harsher language. People can claim that they are not blaming anyone but the individuals involved out of one side of their mouth, but out of the other side are making statements about "King Football" that make it clear they see this as a football issue, not an issue of individuals who engaged in a range of bad behavior. People skip over articles about good things that some Penn State fans are doing to focus on the few who will not admit any mistake. People go to a Penn State football board, and think that people talking about the aspects of the scandal that impact Penn State football on a Penn State football forum only care about how it affects Penn State football.
I think that there is ample evidence on in the last 10-15 posts to show that it is very true with a large number of fans and alumni. The alumni voted to elect someone just like that to the board of directors.
People enjoy believing the worst of each other, and enjoying focusing on the worst in others. This scandal has taught me many things, but that is one of the most overwhelming ones.
Actually, this has made me a little bit more involved in Penn State, and a bit less willing to engage in mindless hero worship.
costalpilot
08-01-2012, 04:03 PM
Spanier "resigned" in November; Erickson is the President. They actually should be angry at Spanier.
The first part of solving the problem is admitting you have a problem. Some of the people don't, and that is where the hostility starts. It revolts people. That is why I keep saying: Legacy protection never works. Arguably, the defensive actions of those people supporting Paterno have hurt Paterno's legacy, and have probably done more to hurt Penn State's reputation than the act.
This is literally Nixonian. I've never seen actual evidence that Nixon planned, authorized, or knew about the actual break in, in advance. He clearly attempted to cover it up after the fact. That is what led to his downfall.
If everyone stood up and said, "Paterno was wrong. He made some mistakes. We need to fix this, and yes, there should be some punishment," we wouldn't have this PR problem. :banghead:
it is clear to me, sir, that the divide in the psu camp is wide indeed at this point, and I expect it will get wider as time goes by. psu's best hope is that your pov prevails. I have been to your board; it does not prevail over there. And now the Lucarno staters appear here. flags awavin, guns all ammod up, and ready to do battle for old state.
they pose a significant threat to your school. your plate is full. peace.
btw espn just announced that former us senator george mitchell has been selected as the new "five year integrity monitor at Penn state." I can imagine the kind of reception he is going to receive in the valley, but I really have no idea. Please tell us how you think he will be received? Wonder what kind of staff he will have, and what kind of authority.
Twindad
08-01-2012, 05:16 PM
I completely agree with this. I do not think a day has passed since last November that I do not think about the victims and feel my heart break for them a little more each time.
http://www.allpsychologycareers.com/topics/stages-of-grief.html
Cappuccino
08-01-2012, 05:52 PM
If the views expressed on that board are representative, then I think Penn State may be unfixeable for a generation.
Good luck to George Mitchell, who did a very good job over here in my country with the Northern Ireland peace negotiations. If he fails, it won't be due to his own lack of ability.
BigCat
08-01-2012, 05:54 PM
Jerry Sandusky “extremely distraught” over Penn State penalties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/jerry-sandusky-extremely-distraught-over-penn-state-penalties/2012/08/01/gJQAuuSfPX_blog.html?wprss=rss_sports
"it is clear to me, sir, that the divide in the psu camp is wide indeed at this point, and I expect it will get wider as time goes by. psu's best hope is that your pov prevails. I have been to your board; it does not prevail over there. And now the Lucarno staters appear here. flags awavin, guns all ammod up, and ready to do battle for old state."
This right here proves my point.
I have said repeatedly on this thread that what Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz did was wrong. That it was a cover-up.
But because I questioned the company line that they did it to protect football, and were driven to do so by a football first culture created by the students, alumni, and fans, I am being lumped in with people who defend them. Which has been exactly my point. Either you blame the football culture of Penn State, or you are in denial, defending child molester enablers.
J. J. in Phila
08-01-2012, 07:28 PM
But because I questioned the company line that they did it to protect football, and were driven to do so by a football first culture created by the students, alumni, and fans, I am being lumped in with people who defend them. Which has been exactly my point. Either you blame the football culture of Penn State, or you are in denial, defending child molester enablers.
Well, if you were to strike out the words "football culture" and insert the words "culture [or "cult"] of Paterno," I would disagree with you. This has not been "The football program is great." It has been "Paterno is great."
This wasn't a football problem; it is a PSU administration problem, that included the football program.
Rlaub44
08-01-2012, 09:35 PM
"it is clear to me, sir, that the divide in the psu camp is wide indeed at this point, and I expect it will get wider as time goes by. psu's best hope is that your pov prevails. I have been to your board; it does not prevail over there. And now the Lucarno staters appear here. flags awavin, guns all ammod up, and ready to do battle for old state."
This right here proves my point.
I have said repeatedly on this thread that what Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz did was wrong. That it was a cover-up.
But because I questioned the company line that they did it to protect football, and were driven to do so by a football first culture created by the students, alumni, and fans, I am being lumped in with people who defend them. Which has been exactly my point. Either you blame the football culture of Penn State, or you are in denial, defending child molester enablers.
I had hoped the Freeh report would help clarify the motive aspect of the cover-up; but despite the conclusions many have drawn, including the NCAA, the emails actually spoke more to your point, with Curley indicating he was uncomfortable going to everyone, but the subject, and Spanier agreeing that it was a more humane solution.
Things may have been explained if Freeh's committee could have spoken to Curley, Schultz, or Spanier, but obviously with their legal situations, that couldn't happen.
Hopefully in the upcoming trials, one of the conspirators will come clean, and we can all understand if it really was about King Football, a stupidly misguided attempt at helping the perp, the complicated ties between the University personnel and Second Mile, or other reasons about which we haven't yet speculated.
Well, if you were to strike out the words "football culture" and insert the words "culture [or "cult"] of Paterno," I would disagree with you. This has not been "The football program is great." It has been "Paterno is great."
This wasn't a football problem; it is a PSU administration problem, that included the football program.
I completely agree that it is an administration problem. Perhaps if I could have found those words early on, there would have been less misunderstanding of my point.
As for the Paterno was great, part of the problem for me is that there are some things that are part of the Penn State culture that are unquestionably good things. Things that started with him, and that the students, and fans, and alumni made their own, and made bigger. It is hard to separate the two--to say, hey, look at these traditions, they're good, let's save them--without giving the impression you are talking about him as a wonderful guy. Granted, covering up child abuse outweighs all the good in the measurement of a person's character. But it does not rewrite history.
BigCat
08-02-2012, 07:11 PM
Obama: Penn State punishment "appropriate" in Sandusky scandal
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-penn-state-punishment-appropriate-sandusky-scandal-215437529--spt.html
J. J. in Phila
08-02-2012, 07:57 PM
Things may have been explained if Freeh's committee could have spoken to Curley, Schultz, or Spanier, but obviously with their legal situations, that couldn't happen.
Snipped to correct a point. Spanier did talk to Freeh, at least at the end.
Schultz and Curley didn't talk, on the advice of their attorneys. The AG requested that Freeh not talk to McQueary and Harmon. It was reported that Harmon and Arnold was requested or declined to talk to Freeh.
http://wearecentralpa.com/fulltext?nxd_id=384932
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8732365
http://inagist.com/all/223426667270520832/
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/analysis_freeh_report_sheds_ne.html
I had hoped the Freeh report would help clarify the motive aspect of the cover-up; but despite the conclusions many have drawn, including the NCAA, the emails actually spoke more to your point, with Curley indicating he was uncomfortable going to everyone, but the subject, and Spanier agreeing that it was a more humane solution.
Things may have been explained if Freeh's committee could have spoken to Curley, Schultz, or Spanier, but obviously with their legal situations, that couldn't happen.
Hopefully in the upcoming trials, one of the conspirators will come clean, and we can all understand if it really was about King Football, a stupidly misguided attempt at helping the perp, the complicated ties between the University personnel and Second Mile, or other reasons about which we haven't yet speculated.
I really hope so. Admittedly, I have personal reasons for not being willing/able to lump all of Penn State as an evil culture. But one of the other reasons that I cannot let go of this point is that I think describing it as a football problem prevents us from actually getting to the root of the problem so that we can learn from it. For instance, what if interviews of 100 people who were told of possible sex abuse but did not report it found that 95 of those 100 people did not do so because the allegations involved a troubled child with a history of dishonesty, and a trusted adult who they did not believe was capable of the abuse, so their gut feeling was to not report it and screw up someone's reputation. We could use that information to prevent such a situation in the future. For starters, educate the public about the actual statistics of child abuse to show them that it is highly likely a child in their extended circle is being abused. Show them profiles of pedophiles and victims, to show that the dynamic of troubled child with a history, and trusted member of the community is actually quite common. Discuss the psychology that makes one feel in their gut that it cannot be true, despite the presence of credible information and multiple red flags. Then give them a checklist to follow, even if they do not believe it, as a precaution.
That, to me, is more productive than allowing the general public to brush this aside as a problem that would never occur in their community because they would never put anything above the safety of a child. Rewriting history to make it fit with what we know now obscures the problem. Taking an honest look at the history of the parties involved, and trying to get to the root of the reason they did what they did helps us identify how/why these things happen and targeting awareness and education to prevent them from happening again.
BigCat
08-03-2012, 08:30 AM
On the topic of the culture at Penn State, here's a link to an ESPN interview with Vicky Triponey. The entirety of the interview will air on Sunday.
She lays out what the problem with the culture was: the head football coach was more powerful than his nominal superiors.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/54667/video-standing-up-to-joe-paterno
Tipstaff
08-03-2012, 10:49 AM
On the topic of the culture at Penn State, here's a link to an ESPN interview with Vicky Triponey. The entirety of the interview will air on Sunday.
She lays out what the problem with the culture was: the head football coach was more powerful than his nominal superiors.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/54667/video-standing-up-to-joe-paterno
To jump off your post -
The following is just a reminder of where Paterno's head was in January, 2011 and the power he had prior to the Sandusky charges being filed.
Paterno was preparing to testify at the Grand Jury and in fact did make a brief appearance at the Grand Jury.
Paterno and certain members of the BOT at Penn State began talks that resulted in a sweetened retirement contract for JoPA. (January, 2011)
All members of the board of trustees weren't informed of the new package before the scandal erupted at Penn State.
Paterno and the university reached agreement on the amended contract that eventually totaled $5.5 million in August, months before charges were filed against Sandusky, but they began negotiating January.
The amended contract included a $3 million career bonus if Paterno retired at the end of the 2011 season, as well as well as forgiveness of $250,000 in outstanding indebtedness and an additional $100,000 in loans.
(Anyone know what the $250,000 was in regard to and the $100,000 in loans)
This is the package that gave Paterno access to a stadium box for his family for 25 years as well as parking privileges and access to on-campus hydrotherapy equipment for his wife.
Also according to published reports this is when Paterno then publicly announced he would retire at the end of the season in a statement that also TOLD school trustees to focus their attention on other matters.
costalpilot
08-03-2012, 12:15 PM
Colin cowherd this morning on espn said that penn state fans are the most delusional fans he has EVER encountered. I think this is closely connected to the five decades of joe culture, joe thought, and is a perfect example of the dangers of tightly controlled information. IMO these people believe most of what they say and what they think happened in joeville. Frankly it's scary and instructive. Our local posters notwithstanding. They are the exceptions, not the rule.
costalpilot
08-03-2012, 12:39 PM
[QUOTE=rlc;8218110]".....
But because I questioned the company line that they did it to protect football, and were driven to do so by a football first culture created by the students, alumni, and fans, I am being lumped in with people who defend them. Which has been exactly my point. Either you blame the football culture of Penn State, or you are in denial, defending child molester enablers.[/QUOTE
It is not a "company line" but a conclusion of an Independent investigator following the most exhaustive and thorough investigation of an American collegiate institution in history. You are free to denegrate and dismiss it. Personally I'll go with freehs opinions over a stater.
Nobody said the football first culture was created by the students alumni and fans. You were not in charge. You merely liked football and myths of moral high grounds. It made for a great story. A great rallying cry and it was oh do sweet to believe in and put your faith in. But you didn't create it, the populace never does. But you fell for it. No body's blaming you. It's not an unusual phenomena in the history of humanity.
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 02:02 PM
It is not a "company line" but a conclusion of an Independent investigator following the most exhaustive and thorough investigation of an American collegiate institution in history. You are free to denegrate and dismiss it. Personally I'll go with freehs opinions over a stater.
Ah, I'm not sure that it the motive for why the 2001 incident happened was not reported.
I've only found two even close reference, one on p. 129 to the "Penn State Way" and on p. 38 about the department being "'an island.'" I think that one of the criticisms is that Penn State is insular, but that wasn't limited to football of the athletic department, though they noted an "overemphasis on athletics (p. 129)." It is not Penn State football, it is Penn State.
I referred to it as: A secular priesthood of administrators allegedly hiding the monster in the cloister of the university. A pervasive evil allegedly reaching out into the community under the guise of great institutions for learning and charity.
I've called that Central Pennsylvania Gothic.
[QUOTE=rlc;8218110]".....
But because I questioned the company line that they did it to protect football, and were driven to do so by a football first culture created by the students, alumni, and fans, I am being lumped in with people who defend them. Which has been exactly my point. Either you blame the football culture of Penn State, or you are in denial, defending child molester enablers.[/QUOTE
It is not a "company line" but a conclusion of an Independent investigator following the most exhaustive and thorough investigation of an American collegiate institution in history. You are free to denegrate and dismiss it. Personally I'll go with freehs opinions over a stater.
Nobody said the football first culture was created by the students alumni and fans. You were not in charge. You merely liked football and myths of moral high grounds. It made for a great story. A great rallying cry and it was oh do sweet to believe in and put your faith in. But you didn't create it, the populace never does. But you fell for it. No body's blaming you. It's not an unusual phenomena in the history of humanity.
Freeh's investigation was far from thorough about the motivation for the coverup, or the "Penn State culture". The only evidence of the "Penn State culture" I found in the Freeh report is a reference to a janitor's view of it, and an unnamed individual that is clearly Vicky what's-her-name. If you want to know how credible of a source she is, search timeline of terror. It was not just Paterno who butted heads with her. She tried to spin it as being about football, but documents published long before this scandal broke show that students and faculty advisors of a wide range of student groups took issue with her because she tried to remove leadership from students, and remove due process from student discipline. She tried to censor and/or shut down student media for expressing opinions against her. She was pushed to resign because the university as a whole did not appreciate her trying to remove leadership opportunities and freedom of expression, and she had difficulty findings jobs afterwards. She had a huge bone to pick with all of Penn State, but she blamed Paterno the most.
If you can show me some substantive evidence about the Penn State culture contained in the Freeh report, such as a survey of professors, for example, since most big football schools have a plethora of professors willing to speak out about the athletics vs academics conundrum, I would give it more weight. But one janitor and a disgruntled former employee do not do make it a thorough investigation of the culture.
HMSHood
08-03-2012, 03:12 PM
Jerry Sandusky “extremely distraught” over Penn State penalties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/jerry-sandusky-extremely-distraught-over-penn-state-penalties/2012/08/01/gJQAuuSfPX_blog.html?wprss=rss_sports
Ironic he says that, as it is his fault that Penn State got penalized because of his action. :crazy:
To jump off your post -
The following is just a reminder of where Paterno's head was in January, 2011 and the power he had prior to the Sandusky charges being filed.
Paterno was preparing to testify at the Grand Jury and in fact did make a brief appearance at the Grand Jury.
Paterno and certain members of the BOT at Penn State began talks that resulted in a sweetened retirement contract for JoPA. (January, 2011)
All members of the board of trustees weren't informed of the new package before the scandal erupted at Penn State.
Paterno and the university reached agreement on the amended contract that eventually totaled $5.5 million in August, months before charges were filed against Sandusky, but they began negotiating January.
The amended contract included a $3 million career bonus if Paterno retired at the end of the 2011 season, as well as well as forgiveness of $250,000 in outstanding indebtedness and an additional $100,000 in loans.
(Anyone know what the $250,000 was in regard to and the $100,000 in loans)
This is the package that gave Paterno access to a stadium box for his family for 25 years as well as parking privileges and access to on-campus hydrotherapy equipment for his wife.
Also according to published reports this is when Paterno then publicly announced he would retire at the end of the season in a statement that also TOLD school trustees to focus their attention on other matters.
Just based on the number, and the use of the word indebtedness instead of just grouping it with loans, I'm guessing it was a pledge for a charitable contribution. When I was a student there, they had pledged or donated 250k for specific projects both my first year and my last year, and I had *heard* that they gave that exact amount every four years. But since then, I have heard nothing of the sort, so can't say for sure.
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 03:52 PM
If you can show me some substantive evidence about the Penn State culture contained in the Freeh report, such as a survey of professors, for example, since most big football schools have a plethora of professors willing to speak out about the athletics vs academics conundrum, I would give it more weight. But one janitor and a disgruntled former employee do not do make it a thorough investigation of the culture.
There is a full blog of them on an alumni site.
For something substantive, look at the "opting out" of the Cleary Act. For more than two decades, they didn't even a policy on it.
There is a full blog of them on an alumni site.
For something substantive, look at the "opting out" of the Cleary Act. For more than two decades, they didn't even a policy on it.
A full blog of what? Professors stating that academics took a backseat to athletics? Which site?
I'm not sure I understand the connection between the Clery Act violations as evidence of the athletics first culture. It was a huge failure, one that I blame more than any other failure other than Sandusky himself. I do not believe this would have happened if the Clery Act had been followed. But I do not see how that is evidence of a football first culture.
BigCat
08-03-2012, 04:12 PM
When will they finally realize they're not in control anymore?
Paterno Family Files Appeal Against NCAA
http://onwardstate.com/2012/08/03/paterno-family-files-appeal-against-ncaa/
When will they finally realize they're not in control anymore?
Paterno Family Files Appeal Against NCAA
http://onwardstate.com/2012/08/03/paterno-family-files-appeal-against-ncaa/
It can't possibly be easy to lose your father, learn that he was not the man you thought he was, and then watch the community that you shared your husband/dad (and his money) with for so many decades lose respect for him. I completely cannot fathom how Sue and their children feel, and it's kind of sad that in all this mess, people cannot find some compassion for them, at least.
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 05:03 PM
A full blog of what? Professors stating that academics took a backseat to athletics? Which site?
Go to the Linkedin site and join the alumni site; the link is there.
I'm not sure I understand the connection between the Clery Act violations as evidence of the athletics first culture. It was a huge failure, one that I blame more than any other failure other than Sandusky himself. I do not believe this would have happened if the Clery Act had been followed. But I do not see how that is evidence of a football first culture.
It is of the "Penn State Way."
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 05:05 PM
When will they finally realize they're not in control anymore?
Paterno Family Files Appeal Against NCAA
http://onwardstate.com/2012/08/03/paterno-family-files-appeal-against-ncaa/
It should be properly ignored due to lack of standing.
Go to the Linkedin site and join the alumni site; the link is there.
It is of the "Penn State Way."
Thanks, I will check out the linked in site. If I can remember my password there.
Wait, so you are saying the Penn State way is just to fail. It's not just putting football first, it includes caring about football, but also includes not caring about anything else? I'm not sure how you can tie these together without saying the Penn State way is something excessively broad and excessively horrible.
Edited to rephrase: I do not see how you can turn the Clery Act failures into evidence of the football first culture they are describing, unless the culture you are describing is something where not only is football first, but nothing else matters at all. And I think that is absolutely unfair to the thousands of students, faculty, staff, and administrators who work hard and go above and beyond on a regular basis.
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 05:11 PM
It can't possibly be easy to lose your father, learn that he was not the man you thought he was, and then watch the community that you shared your husband/dad (and his money) with for so many decades lose respect for him. I completely cannot fathom how Sue and their children feel, and it's kind of sad that in all this mess, people cannot find some compassion for them, at least.
My compassion ends where right begins. Neither the family, nor Joe Paterno were being punished by the NCAA. Neither the family, nor Joe Paterno are members on the NCAA.
My compassion ends where right begins. Neither the family, nor Joe Paterno were being punished by the NCAA. Neither the family, nor Joe Paterno are members on the NCAA.
I'm not saying they should be able to sue. But I have compassion for a lot of people, even when they are wrong, and it's possible to say they do not have standing, or discuss the fact that they do not have standing, without using intentionally critical language.
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 05:16 PM
Thanks, I will check out the linked in site. If I can remember my password there.
Wait, so you are saying the Penn State way is just to fail. It's not just putting football first, it includes caring about football, but also includes not caring about anything else? I'm not sure how you can tie these together without saying the Penn State way is something excessively broad and excessively horrible.
Edited to rephrase: I do not see how you can turn the Clery Act failures into evidence of the football first culture they are describing, unless the culture you are describing is something where not only is football first, but nothing else matters at all. And I think that is absolutely unfair to the thousands of students, faculty, staff, and administrators who work hard and go above and beyond on a regular basis.
Note that I am NOT saying it was "football first" environment. I am saying that it was the cloistered environment, which extended into sports.
BigCat
08-03-2012, 05:16 PM
Ah, I'm not sure that it the motive for why the 2001 incident happened was not reported.
I've only found two even close reference, one on p. 129 to the "Penn State Way" and on p. 38 about the department being "'an island.'" I think that one of the criticisms is that Penn State is insular, but that wasn't limited to football of the athletic department, though they noted an "overemphasis on athletics (p. 129)." It is not Penn State football, it is Penn State.
I referred to it as: A secular priesthood of administrators allegedly hiding the monster in the cloister of the university. A pervasive evil allegedly reaching out into the community under the guise of great institutions for learning and charity.
I've called that Central Pennsylvania Gothic.
There's a great book to be written on this scandal, IMO, if the author expands beyond football into the cultural composition of Penn State and central PA.
Note that I am NOT saying it was "football first" environment. I am saying that it was the cloistered environment, which extended into sports.
I was talking about there being a lack of evidence of a football first culture, pervasive throughout the school and community, and you said that the Clery Act violations were substantive evidence of that culture.
I do not disagree with the cloistered environment. I think there is some extreme shadiness and borderline incestuous relationships going on up there within a relatively small but powerful group. I was not saying there is no substantive evidence of that.
I still do not see how the failure to implement the Clery Act is evidence of the cloistered environment. Unless, of course, the Clery Act mandates were received after knowledge of Sandusky's crimes were made known among the higher level administrators, and the higher level administrators were responsible for not implementing the Clery Act. But frequently, that would not have been somebody at that level. The legal counsel would have likely gone to a director of some HR type department.
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 05:35 PM
I was talking about there being a lack of evidence of a football first culture, pervasive throughout the school and community, and you said that the Clery Act violations were substantive evidence of that culture.
I was referring, as I did in the quote, to Penn State as a whole. I have gone out out of my may to say that this is not a Penn State Football problem, but a Penn State problem. I have also noted that the Freeh report doesn't indicate that this is a "football problem."
I still do not see how the failure to implement the Clery Act is evidence of the cloistered environment. Unless, of course, the Clery Act mandates were received after knowledge of Sandusky's crimes were made known among the higher level administrators, and the higher level administrators were responsible for not implementing the Clery Act. But frequently, that would not have been somebody at that level. The legal counsel would have likely gone to a director of some HR type department.
Good heavens, failing to publicly report incidents, as required by law, is not an example of a cloistered environment? Come on!
IzzyBlanche
08-03-2012, 05:43 PM
It can't possibly be easy to lose your father, learn that he was not the man you thought he was, and then watch the community that you shared your husband/dad (and his money) with for so many decades lose respect for him. I completely cannot fathom how Sue and their children feel, and it's kind of sad that in all this mess, people cannot find some compassion for them, at least.
It would be easier for me to feel some compassion for them if they would accept reality and shut their pieholes.
ETA And I have seen no evidence whatsoever that they've acknowledged JP wasn't the man they thought he was.
I was referring, as I did in the quote, to Penn State as a whole. I have gone out out of my may to say that this is not a Penn State Football problem, but a Penn State problem. I have also noted that the Freeh report doesn't indicate that this is a "football problem."
Good heavens, failing to publicly report incidents, as required by law, is not an example of a cloistered environment? Come on!
Okay, but you made all these points in response to my statements that there is no substantive evidence of the football first environment. The Freeh report did indicate it was a football problem. In the early pages, the pages that so many people read and accepted without reading it in its entirety, it said that the cover-up was done to protect a football program. The NCAA used that finding to justify the sanctions with widespread ramifications. That the fans and students and alumni created this environment.
Part of my problem here is that when I was a student, "Penn State" meant the students, alumni, faculty. The administration was like this little group of corporate America drones who were trying to interfere, trying to control things to maximize revenue or increase standings or impress people on their resume, even if it meant breaking away from the traditions and the best Penn State had to offer. There was always animosity between the Penn State community and the bureaucrats hired to run the place. I'm pretty sure two out of my four years at University Park, there were petitions to oust GS. Unfortunately, they were never taken seriously because he always claimed he was not popular among students because he was trying to make it a dry campus. Granted, that made him no friends on campus, but it was not the only strike against him. When this scandal broke, almost everyone I talked to from Penn State was 110% positive that GS covered this up, and JVP did not even know about it. Because that fit with what we knew. Now knowing that JVP acted in concert with the administrators means he went to the dark side, the other team, the group he had previously fought on behalf of the student body who did not like or trust the administration.
When you are saying there was a cloistered environment within the administration, I completely agree. We have substantial evidence of that, and it fits well with what we already knew.
When someone says that there is a "Penn State way" or "Penn State culture" that condoned or encouraged this, I can not agree. The students, alumni, and faculty, as well as front-line staff (those interacting with the students on a regular basis) had a very different attitude, and they always have been the "Penn State" we talk about.
As for the Clery Act, I apologize for misunderstanding. I was not thinking of the failure to report because that's a failure with or without the Clery Act. I was thinking of the failure to follow the mandates set forth in the Clery Act for the training and education of the faculty and staff, and establishing of procedures for reporting abuse.
elmomom
08-03-2012, 06:44 PM
Sympathy for the Paternos? Gah, have they ever once showed true sympathy for the victims? All I have ever noticed is them trying to claim that they are the real victims here, not the children. Sympathy for them? You must be joking.
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 06:46 PM
Okay, but you made all these points in response to my statements that there is no substantive evidence of the football first environment. The Freeh report did indicate it was a football problem. In the early pages, the pages that so many people read and accepted without reading it in its entirety, it said that the cover-up was done to protect a football program. The NCAA used that finding to justify the sanctions with widespread ramifications. That the fans and students and alumni created this environment.
Seriously, could you provide a page citation. I went through it with a search, and the only person I found referring to that was one of the janitors, stating that Paterno was powerful.
When someone says that there is a "Penn State way" or "Penn State culture" that condoned or encouraged this, I can not agree. The students, alumni, and faculty, as well as front-line staff (those interacting with the students on a regular basis) had a very different attitude, and they always have been the "Penn State" we talk about.
Respectfully snipped, because I agree somewhat. I cannot agree with the conclusion, which I included. We (and I do mean "we") meaning we didn't run the place on a daily basis. The administrators did. They did things "The Penn State Way." We were just passing through.
As alumni, what really do we do? Maybe contribute, wear Penn State gear (I am wearing my class ring right now), maybe go to games, and if were are even semi active, vote in alumni elections, or are active in our local chapter of the Alumni Association. We don't run the place.
As students, wear Penn State gear, go to games, maybe we were in student government or organizations. We didn't run the place either.
The faculty? Well, maybe they ran the students, and yes, some of them had some administrative responsibilities, but not as great as the administrators.
Maybe we are Penn State, but we sure as heck didn't run Penn State.
Seriously, could you provide a page citation. I went through it with a search, and the only person I found referring to that was one of the janitors, stating that Paterno was powerful.
Respectfully snipped, because I agree somewhat. I cannot agree with the conclusion, which I included. We (and I do mean "we") meaning we didn't run the place on a daily basis. The administrators did. They did things "The Penn State Way." We were just passing through.
As alumni, what really do we do? Maybe contribute, wear Penn State gear (I am wearing my class ring right now), maybe go to games, and if were are even semi active, vote in alumni elections, or are active in our local chapter of the Alumni Association. We don't run the place.
As students, wear Penn State gear, go to games, maybe we were in student government or organizations. We didn't run the place either.
The faculty? Well, maybe they ran the students, and yes, some of them had some administrative responsibilities, but not as great as the administrators.
Maybe we are Penn State, but we sure as heck didn't run Penn State.
I cannot open the freeh report right now. As soon as I can, I will. It is possible it was in press conference statement, and if so, I apologize for my mistake, I may have read it in the press conference statement and then remembered it as being in the report, but it was accompanied by the blatant disregard language.
We did not run the university, but my fellow students and faculty had far more influence on the values I took from the place. Administration did nothing for me. They provided no guidance, rarely acted in a way that even hinted they cared about the students. But my fellow students did. They mentored without being asked. They ran student organizations with self-imposed rules that forced freshmen members to learn to prioritize academics and fit everything else around that. They encouraged philanthropy. And when we needed an adult to step in, it was the faculty and the coaches who did so.
Granted, the students were heavily influenced by JVP, but the values they took from him were values we now know he did not show after 1998. I see that as he did not practice what he preached, so it should have no bearing on those who were influenced by him if the influence, in and of itself, is positive. Others see that as we allowed ourselves to be led and influenced by a morally corrupt human being, therefore, we must all be morally corrupt. Or that we created a morally corrupt atmosphere, which made him act in such a manner.
Right now, what is being questioned is only partially the decisions made. The rest is the moral character of not only the individuals involved, but anyone who identifies with "Penn State", so the values are more relevant, IMO, to the fairness and accuracy of those judgments.
I'm sorry for rambling and not articulating this well. I have a dog that needs to go out and a kid overdue for bedtime screaming in my ear.
I am still getting a file error message when I try to open the Freeh report, but I saw one article quote the Freeh report as putting one of the problems as "a culture of reverence for a football program".
Of course, that article reminded me of another question.
Why are we giving all of the janitorial staff a free pass on their failures?
J. J. in Phila
08-03-2012, 09:09 PM
I am still getting a file error message when I try to open the Freeh report, but I saw one article quote the Freeh report as putting one of the problems as "a culture of reverence for a football program".
Of course, that article reminded me of another question.
Why are we giving all of the janitorial staff a free pass on their failures?
Because, in the hierarchy of things, they were the lowest; the PSP Commissioner, Noonan, actually singled them out in his initial press conference.
it states "bad publicity" but not for the football program as a cause, but not the only one.
Reader
08-04-2012, 12:52 PM
On death's door
Inside the negotiations that brought Penn State football to the brink of extinction
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8228641/inside-secret-negotiations-brought-penn-state-football-brink-extinction
waltzingmatilda
08-04-2012, 04:03 PM
On death's door
Inside the negotiations that brought Penn State football to the brink of extinction
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8228641/inside-secret-negotiations-brought-penn-state-football-brink-extinction
Thanks for the great article, Reader. This is part that I feel bad about.....
• Penalties would harm many people who were not responsible: current players, the new coaching staff and, in lost dollars, central Pennsylvania residents.
So many innocent and good people will be hurt by the non actions of a few men.
moo
wm
J. J. in Phila
08-06-2012, 06:16 PM
One member of the BoT is planning to challenge the NCAA ruling.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/penn_state_trustee_in_letter_s.html#incart_river_d efault
I'd assume he's going to try to get the BoT to do it.
Reader
08-07-2012, 11:31 AM
Penn State Scandal: Paterno Family Appeal Creates Truly Mixed, Uneasy Feeling
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1286595-penn-state-scandal-paterno-family-appeal-creates-truly-mixed-uneasy-feeling
...........As we discussed here at Your Best 11 previously, the Board of Trustees had an opportunity to bring Erickson and the NCAA to task, except they elected to take the path of least resistance. It made sense; the school didn't need the firestorm that would come with vetoing Erickson and challenging the NCAA.
In that same vein, the Paterno family appeal makes some compelling statements: (follow)
Except it is not, because that compelling argument is linked to rhetoric like this:
To severely punish a University and its community and to condemn a great educator, philanthropist and coach without any public review or hearing is unfair on its face and a violation of NCAA guidelines.
Sure, they say "University" and "community," but ultimately, this is about the "condemnation" of the great Joe Paterno.........
So, while there are good points in the appeal, they do, and should, fall on deaf ears. This is another bad play for the Paterno family; their search to "find the truth" is a poor veil for the goal of securing a legacy.
More at link....
Reader
08-07-2012, 12:19 PM
One member of the BoT is planning to challenge the NCAA ruling.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/penn_state_trustee_in_letter_s.html#incart_river_d efault
I'd assume he's going to try to get the BoT to do it.
Trustee Ryan Combie is a member of the same group as Trustee Anthony P. Lubrano, Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, who support all things Paterno:
http://www.ps4rs.org/we-support.html
http://www.ps4rs.org/who-we-are.html
How The Group Was Formed
The group was formed the week after the Board of Trustees made the decision to terminate Joe Paterno's position, the media had a field day with Joe's legacy and the University's reputation was tarnished.
At that moment in time the Alumni, Students, Friends and supporters experienced many different feelings - anger, frustration, sadness and heartache. What happened to Joe Paterno was wrong on so many levels. Joe was the foundation of the University we know today as Penn State, he spent a lifetime giving back to the University.
One of their main goals was to get 3 members elected to the BOT and they did get Lubrano and Combie elected out of the ones promoted, not sure about others...
http://www.ps4rs.org/docs/press-release_2-1-12.pdf
These 'top 6' candidates included Combie but he was not one of the final 3
put forth by the group:
http://www.ps4rs.org/candidates.html
They also are raising questions about the Freeh findings and the NCAA penalties:
http://www.ps4rs.org/media.html
Press Releases
July 31, 2012
PS4RS Demand Contracts and Details of Freeh Hiring be Made Public
July 26, 2012
PS4RS Gives Freeh Report a Solid "F" Using Objective Objective 95-Point Checklist
July 26, 2012
PS4RS Completed Freeh Report Checklist
July 23, 2012
PS4RS Statement on NCAA Sanctions
Reader
08-07-2012, 12:53 PM
I also came across this interesting article about Mr. Lubrano:
A polarizing figure emerges in normally quiet vote for Penn State board
http://articles.philly.com/2012-04-22/news/31382693_1_penn-state-board-board-candidates-joe-paterno
......Board members have uncharacteristically spoken out about what they view as questionable behavior by a front-runner for election to the board - Anthony P. Lubrano, a wealthy businessman and school donor from Glenmoore, Chester County. His name is already on the school's 5,400-seat baseball park after he pledged $2.5 million to build it........
He has argued especially loudly that Paterno was unfairly treated by the board, and he demanded that it resign.........
But Lubrano, some trustees and university employees say, is the one who deserves the criticism.
They say he has been discourteous to female employees in the athletic department, belligerent toward investigators hired by Penn State to unravel the sex-abuse scandal, and deliberately rude to board members...........
The night before Paterno was buried in January, Lubrano approached a team of investigators from a firm run by former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.
The encounter at a restaurant at the Nittany Lion Inn apparently was so disturbing to one of the lead investigators that he wrote an e-mail to the board of trustees outlining his concerns.
Lubrano, the investigator wrote, used foul language, appeared to be "inebriated," and "confronted them in a belligerent manner," according to the e-mail obtained by The Inquirer........
Three sources in the athletic department complained of Lubrano's treatment of women, including one incident in which he is alleged to have called a secretary a "dumb b**ch" after she asked him to spell his name.
"To say that I'm afraid of him is accurate," the source said.............
Behavior of this sort is alleged in papers filed in his 2011 divorce in Chester County. The lawyer for his wife, Sara Jane, described Lubrano's behavior as "increasingly threatening" in an Aug. 31 letter to Lubrano's lawyer that is part of the divorce file.............
Board chair Karen Peetz received a phone call from Lubrano that upset some trustees who heard the message, according to a university source.
"I have an upcoming press conference," Lubrano said, according to an e-mailed transcript of the message. "I prefer not to say bad things about her, but if she does not return my call this weekend, she'll be forcing my hand."
"This is very unfortunate," said Keith W. Eckel, a longtime trustee and Lackawanna County farmer. "It's very sad that Mr. Lubrano has resorted to threatening tactics to achieve some goal. . . . There is no room for this type of alleged activity in leadership in any organization and at any level."
More at link....
I'm not pointing fingers. I'm asking why is Penn State being treated differently? Why are all the 680,000+ alumni and 40,000+ students being lumped in with those who actually committed crimes or had knowledge of crimes? Saying that Penn State is culpable is like saying Catholics are culpable for the abuses committed by their priests. It is absolutely an appropriate analogy. They looked up to their leaders, they considered them above such behavior, should they be blamed for their trust and loyalty? Should it be demanded that they lose the loyalty they have to the entire organization and their fellow Catholics?
Or can we accept that they had good intentions, but they were fooled, not because of some character flaw of their own, but because of some particularly devious individuals who hid within the walls of their organization? Can we allow them to keep their faith, their relationships, and their bonds with the good guys within the organization, to sift through and pick out that is worth saving without having to lump it all into one giant trash heap?
Actually, a lot of us have questioned how Catholics continue to support the Vatican as an institution.
nittanylioness234
08-07-2012, 10:53 PM
One member of the BoT is planning to challenge the NCAA ruling.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/penn_state_trustee_in_letter_s.html#incart_river_d efault
I'd assume he's going to try to get the BoT to do it.
And now there are former players also appealing:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8245600/former-penn-state-nittany-lions-players-intend-appeal-ncaa-sanctions
J. J. in Phila
08-07-2012, 11:11 PM
And now there are former players also appealing:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8245600/former-penn-state-nittany-lions-players-intend-appeal-ncaa-sanctions
They will have a greater problem, since they are not members and not even mentioned in the consent decree.
Leilei
08-08-2012, 02:56 AM
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20120804/OPINION01/308040003/A-good-man
I'm so sickened by this... flat out blaming the victims. I really need to stop clicking on anything PSU related, my blood pressure can't take it.
HMSHood
08-08-2012, 11:03 AM
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20120804/OPINION01/308040003/A-good-man
I'm so sickened by this... flat out blaming the victims. I really need to stop clicking on anything PSU related, my blood pressure can't take it.
Sickening. Sorry if anyone takes offense at this. I think that Happy Valley is a small minded and parochial world. Jerry Sandusky was allowed to thrive because of his enablers and environment he was in. He whines that Joe Paterno was paid less than other coaches. Well, the other coaches did not harbor a pervert and knew about it, like Paterno did.
waltzingmatilda
08-08-2012, 02:00 PM
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20120804/OPINION01/308040003/A-good-man
I'm so sickened by this... flat out blaming the victims. I really need to stop clicking on anything PSU related, my blood pressure can't take it.
Absolutely disgusting!!!! I cannot believe what I just read.
How about the abused children; they accepted tickets to Penn State games, lunches, dinners, etc. Didn’t they have motives? Why didn’t they go to their parents, police or school officials? Why are they held blameless? Now, years later, they come forward, including Sandusky’s son.
OT The author bears the same last name as a certain actress who made an appearance in Bellefonte during JS' trial. I wonder if there is any relation?
wm
Reader
08-08-2012, 07:59 PM
Penn State Scandal: Board of Trustees Set to Become Next 'Bad Guy' in Scandal
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1288398-penn-state-scandal-board-of-trustees-set-to-become-next-bad-guy-in-scandal
Right now, the Board of Trustees appears to be in it for the long haul. This isn't just an NCAA issue, as ESPN stated in their report:
Trustees and a person with first-hand knowledge of the discussions said the move is a precursor to a federal lawsuit asking a judge to invalidate the sanctions, because trustees expect the NCAA to reject the appeal.
That's easy to say now, but when things get heavy, when they get ugly, the Board of Trustees is going to have to have their boots laced up and be prepared to wade through the muck. As word of the appeal gets out, the public is going to battle it. The Board of Trustees will have a fight on their hands, a battle on two fronts—both publicly and with the legal system.
Pardon my language but this is pure stupidity as far as I'm concerned, IMO.
Why do they want to start all this nastiness when the school and players were starting to settle down and get back to their real business of education?
Pride goeth before a fall.....
Reader
08-08-2012, 08:29 PM
Penn State Board of Trustees Appeal Exposes Paterno Family Hypocrisy
http://1045theteam.com/penn-state-board-of-trustees-appeal-exposes-paterno-family-hypocrisy/
Four members of Penn State’s Board of Trustees are a part of an appeal to declare the consent agreement for the sanctions levied against Penn State between the NCAA and the University “null and void” on the grounds that Penn State President Rodney Erickson did not have the legal authority to agree without the board’s approval.
First of all, this is a ridiculous idea on the end of the Board of Trustees. One of two things are going to come of this: either your appeal is going to be denied (the likely option), or you will win, the sanctions will be lifted, then the NCAA will say “you know what, we’ve changed our minds, we’re just going to nuke the entire football program like we were going to if Erickson didn’t agree to the sanctions.” Talk about a battle worth fighting.
But let’s forget all of that for a minute. I want to talk about a very important group of people in all of this, who have made sure to deliver a statement at every turn during this entire ordeal; the Paterno family...........
So far, we have yet to hear a statement from the Paterno family about the choice of members of the Board of Trustees to appeal the sanctions. But, let me ask you a question: how does appealing these sanctions serve to fix any of the things that the Paternos lamented about in the above quotes?
Does this appeal serve the victims of Jerry Sandusky’s horrible crimes or help heal the Penn State community? Does it help the victims by uncovering the full truth? Does it serve justice for Sandusky’s crimes? No, it doesn’t.
So why aren’t the Paternos nearly as concerned or statement happy about this appeal by four Board of Trustees members? The answer is, as it usually is in cases like this, a raging case of hypocrisy.............
J. J. in Phila
08-08-2012, 10:20 PM
Standing Order 10 of the BoT actually specifically gives the president the authority to enter into agreements, at least absent instructions from the Board to the contrary. Erickson was granted the authority to sign the consent agree, and the board met several days before and, if properly prepared, could have ordered him not to sign it. They did not.
Reader
08-09-2012, 02:08 PM
Penn State’s trustees to consider ratifying NCAA penalties over Sandusky scandal response
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/penn-states-trustees-to-consider-ratifying-ncaa-penalties-over-sandusky-scandal-response/2012/08/09/a4ece4d6-e247-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Penn State trustees will meet this weekend to consider whether to ratify the school’s consent decree with the NCAA that imposed penalties for how the university handled the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal...........
A notice posted on Penn State’s website says the Sunday afternoon telephone conference will be broadcast live online.
ETA: the link is actually on the BOT site with link to the online conference:
Aug 09, 2012
Trustees to hold special meeting on NCAA consent decree
The Penn State Board of Trustees will hold a special meeting via conference call at 5 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 12. The sole purpose of the special meeting is for the trustees to consider ratification of the binding consent decree imposed by the NCAA and accepted by the University. The public can listen to the meeting at the following web site online: WPSU.org/live.
I'll post it on the BOT thread also.....
http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/trustees-to-hold-special-meeting-on-ncaa-consent-decree
Good move to me since only 4 of the trustees are part of the appeal this would let the majority have a voice in how to proceed....
Rlaub44
08-11-2012, 06:14 PM
Penn State’s trustees to consider ratifying NCAA penalties over Sandusky scandal response
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/penn-states-trustees-to-consider-ratifying-ncaa-penalties-over-sandusky-scandal-response/2012/08/09/a4ece4d6-e247-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Penn State trustees will meet this weekend to consider whether to ratify the school’s consent decree with the NCAA that imposed penalties for how the university handled the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal...........
A notice posted on Penn State’s website says the Sunday afternoon telephone conference will be broadcast live online.
ETA: the link is actually on the BOT site with link to the online conference:
Aug 09, 2012
Trustees to hold special meeting on NCAA consent decree
The Penn State Board of Trustees will hold a special meeting via conference call at 5 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 12. The sole purpose of the special meeting is for the trustees to consider ratification of the binding consent decree imposed by the NCAA and accepted by the University. The public can listen to the meeting at the following web site online: WPSU.org/live.
I'll post it on the BOT thread also.....
http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/trustees-to-hold-special-meeting-on-ncaa-consent-decree
Good move to me since only 4 of the trustees are part of the appeal this would let the majority have a voice in how to proceed....
Now long-time Trustee Joel Myers, founder of Accu-Weather, is seeking to postpone the telephone conference and take time to review the Freeh Report prior to any further Board action.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/08/11/3296001/joel-myers-questions-vote-on-sanctions.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop
BigCat
08-11-2012, 07:57 PM
Valley of denial: Some Penn State supporters just don't get it
It is a cliche of therapy that someone must admit a problem first for it to be properly addressed. But some supporters of Penn State University, addicted to the football program and obsessed with old coach Joe Paterno, show little understanding of that concept.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/valley-of-denial-some-penn-state-supporters-just-dont-get-it-648402/#ixzz23HjVFCfL
Reader
08-11-2012, 08:42 PM
According to this link from an hour ago, the conference call meeting is still on schedule for Sunday at 5pm ET:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-08-11/Penn-State-Board-of-Trustees-NCAA-sanctions/56984974/1
waltzingmatilda
08-12-2012, 09:03 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/penn-state-t-shirt-puts-c_n_1764920.html?utm_hp_ref=college&ir=College
Penn State's Anti-NCAA T-Shirt Puts Communism Into Play
Unbelievable! moo
Mama-cita
08-12-2012, 08:27 PM
The board backed the President. Now maybe this madness can end. Accept your punishment and try to move on. The world is watching; show a bit of dignity and grace!
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/penn_state_trustees_back_presi.html#incart_river_d efault
costalpilot
08-13-2012, 06:01 AM
the lubranos of the world apparent;y do not understand that the full ncaa board, made up of University Presidents, were ready to SHUT DOWN the penn state football program for a period of years, in addition to other significant penalties, and that Erickson took the best deal he could get for the university and the football program...which is LUCKY to be alive. and that this was because of the institutional failure of the university to control the football progam; no, lubrano still persisits with his joe fantasies. reminds me of other die hard true believers of the past century, slavishly devoted to dark, sick myths which the rest of the world knows are wrong but which they fail to see, bound as they are by their devotion.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8263048/penn-state-nittany-lions-board-signals-support-president-rodney-erickson
penn states new problem are these true believers. they are the schools worst enemy going forward. do they think the 2A is just kidding when it says their progtam was run amuck and that it must never happen again? oh no, I know what they say: the 2A is WRONG. the freeh report is WRONG. joepa was RIGHT. we were fine, just fine. ya got us all wrong. your all wrong. you just dont get it.
right.
BigCat
08-13-2012, 09:37 AM
the lubranos of the world apparent;y do not understand that the full ncaa board, made up of University Presidents, were ready to SHUT DOWN the penn state football program for a period of years, in addition to other significant penalties, and that Erickson took the best deal he could get for the university and the football program...which is LUCKY to be alive. and that this was because of the institutional failure of the university to control the football progam; no, lubrano still persisits with his joe fantasies. reminds me of other die hard true believers of the past century, slavishly devoted to dark, sick myths which the rest of the world knows are wrong but which they fail to see, bound as they are by their devotion.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8263048/penn-state-nittany-lions-board-signals-support-president-rodney-erickson
penn states new problem are these true believers. they are the schools worst enemy going forward. do they think the 2A is just kidding when it says their progtam was run amuck and that it must never happen again? oh no, I know what they say: the 2A is WRONG. the freeh report is WRONG. joepa was RIGHT. we were fine, just fine. ya got us all wrong. your all wrong. you just dont get it.
right.
I couldn't agree with you more. To me there is no more intriguing phenomenon in human history than mass delusion. In particular, I've always been fascinated by the 17th century Turkish Jew Sabbatai Zevi, who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. Suspicious of his large following, the Turkish authorities imprisoned him and he eventually converted to Islam. So you would think there would have been massive disillusionment amongst his followers. Not for the true believers. They converted to Islam and denounced Judaism. In their minds, to be a follower of the Jewish Messiah meant reviling Judaism. Does that make any sense? It makes about as much sense as Penn State fanatics believing the way to restore JoePa's legacy is to destroy the university in the process.
It doesn't have to be that way. Penn State football can survive the NCAA sanctions, which, while tough, are hardly insurmountable. Bill O'Brien was actually working on a decent recruiting class, even after the sanctions were announced, but he's been losing quality recruits lately. High school kids read message boards. They don't see optimism on the PSU boards. All they see is hatred and vile, not only for outsiders, but for the leadership of the university as well. Why would any kid want to be a part of that?
Rlaub44
08-13-2012, 05:15 PM
Interesting column today wondering how NCAA will respond to the widening North Carolina "no-show classes for athletes" scandal, in the aftermath of the severity of Penn State's sanctions.
http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/08/as_north_carolina_academic_sca.html
Reader
08-13-2012, 07:41 PM
NCAA appeal a losing battle? Experts: PSU has little recourse, risks reviving negative message
When it comes to the NCAA, due process and other standards of a court of law don’t apply.
That’s according to one expert in NCAA regulations and enforcement. David Ridpath, associate professor of sports management at Ohio University, said Penn State doesn’t have to be a member of the NCAA if it doesn’t like the sanctions the organization imposed on the university for its role in the Jerry Sandusky scandal. But, in this case, Penn State President Rodney Erickson already signed off on the penalties..........
Gene Grabowski, senior vice president at Levick Strategic Communications, said if Penn State wants to get past the crisis it will have to find a way to get those appealing the decisions to stop. Otherwise, Grabowski said, from a communications perspective, the continuing story will be disastrous for the university.
“It keeps everyone thinking and talking about the past and old wounds, rather than moving forward,” he said.........
Roberts, a sports law expert, said he thinks the NCAA knew the legal risks, but was hoping Penn State wouldn’t challenge them. The association assumed and appears to have been proven correct that the president and most trustees wouldn’t want to put the university through a lengthy legal battle.
“The university is not on the side of the angels in this whole case,” Roberts said. “They don’t need to have the world reminded on a daily basis that this happened at Penn State.”................
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/08/12/3296944/ncaa-appeal-a-losing-battle.html#storylink=cpy
costalpilot
08-14-2012, 12:25 AM
now they have a web site, a poll that shows most respondents (who knows what the quality of the poll might have been) are misinformed as to the facts of the case, ( to joepas detriment: they are affronted) and they are organizing for the restoration, joepa will rise again.
amazing how they focus on the lost leader as a catalyst for their struggle.
true believers engaged in what is becoming something like a sacred crusade.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=9226646
Tipstaff
08-14-2012, 12:27 PM
And the beat goes on -
Spanier's lawyers to rebut Freeh report
By The Associated Press 12:05 p.m.
Attorneys for Penn State's ousted president are planning a news conference to rebut what they view as inaccuracies in a report that concluded he concealed …
remainder can be found in breaking news at www.triblive.com.
Reader
08-14-2012, 03:56 PM
HOW YOU CAN HELP CLEAR JOE and Reverse the Sanctions
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-you-can-help-clear-joe-and-reverse.html
WE NEED SOME HELP from anyone here who would like to help with the effort to clear Joe Paterno and who would like to join our team of online volunteers to help gather information and steer readers to Framing Paterno and The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal websites. There is plenty you can do to help just devoting a few minutes each day.
[Check out another T-shirt: The Freeh Stooges
http://www.forever409.com/]
Also notice they would much rather it be a 2nd Mile scandal.....I haven't checked that site out yet.....and yes, 2nd Mile most likely is being investigated and hopefully will pay the price if their org and executives did not act correctly re: JS...but that is not going to change what the PSU 4 did either.....
One thing I do like about the site is the good links they have on the R...
-------
Did Freeh Frame Joe Paterno?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Did-Freeh-Framed-Joe-Pater-by-Barry-Bozeman-120810-840.html
The FactFreeh Fiction contains several examples of the most egregious stretching of slim "evidence" to construct absurd conclusions that Joe Paterno and PSU were culpable in covering up for Jerry Sandusky........more and more and more......
5 pages of this guy's 'analysis' of the Freeh report.....which is not gonna change anything...not the report, not the sanctions and the BOT is not gonna resign just because they say so....
I'm beginning to think not only are these people deluded about JP being their savior and could do no wrong, but that they are just spoiled...lol...they don't like what happened and they want it changed NOW, how they want, do you hear? and if you don't we will tell you over and over and over.....and we will rant and rant too, lol....and never give up until JP gets his reputation and wins back,,,,,mainly the WINS...because that's what was most important...the football wins......
Sad....eh?
I wonder if these people would ever consider doing something positive like....volunteer to help abused children??
IMO
Rlaub44
08-21-2012, 09:09 PM
When I was at Penn State, Shane Conlan lived on the same dorm floor as I did (nice guy, but an imposing specimen). In this article, Jack Ham and Conlan share their thoughts about the NCAA sanctions, new coach Bill O'Brien, and some of the players that have chosen to stay at PSU.
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/563552/Ex-Nittany-Lion-speaks-out-against-NCAA.html?nav=746
Rlaub44
09-15-2012, 07:23 PM
Sara Ganim reported yesterday that the Attorney General's office has been asked to look into whether President Erickson had the authority to sign the consent decree accepting the NCAA sanctions/
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/09/penn_state_boards_handling_of.html
J. J. in Phila
09-16-2012, 06:38 PM
Sara Ganim reported yesterday that the Attorney General's office has been asked to look into whether President Erickson had the authority to sign the consent decree accepting the NCAA sanctions/
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/09/penn_state_boards_handling_of.html
It's high profile, but I would doubt they would intervene. They have a habit of not doing so.
Rlaub44
09-16-2012, 09:41 PM
It's high profile, but I would doubt they would intervene. They have a habit of not doing so.
The can of worms it would open would be unbelievable - I agree that they probably won't get involved.
J. J. in Phila
09-17-2012, 01:35 AM
The can of worms it would open would be unbelievable - I agree that they probably won't get involved.
I speak from experience. :) In my consulting, I deal with a nonprofits whose members often complain about bylaw violation and complain to the state. I've never known it to go anywhere, unless there is a violation of state law.
Usually, the disgruntled members (who often have very good cause to be disgruntled), will have to file a civil suit. The problem for the alumni is that, technically, they are not "members" of the university, as a corporate body. The alumni, faculty, students, Paterno family, rabid football fans, whomever, have no standing to sue. The case may be toss out on that ground.
The board members are however, members. In theory, Lubrano, et al., could. However, there is a principle that the members first must try to remedy the situation internally. He hasn't, as of yet. He could vote to rescind the consent decree, but that would be an admission that it was valid in the first place.
There is another problem. By Penn State entering into the NCAA, all those years ago, they granted the president the authority to do certain things. An argument can be made that because Penn State signed on to the NCAA, that granted the president the authority to come up with this.
And, the trustees did delegate to the president broad powers:
ORDER X. DELEGATION OF CORPORATE AUTHORITY
(1) Board of Trustees Delegation of Authority to Certain University Administrative Officers. The President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, and Corporate Controller of this Corporation, or any one of such officers be and they are hereby fully authorized and empowered on behalf of the Corporation to execute and acknowledge all deeds, agreements and contracts, and to transfer and endorse, sell, assign, set over and deliver any and all shares of stock, bonds, debentures, notes, evidences of indebtedness or other securities now or hereafter standing in the name of or owned by this Corporation, and to make, execute, acknowledge, and deliver, under the corporate seal of this Corporation, any and all written instruments necessary or proper to effectuate the authority hereby conferred.
http://www.psu.edu/trustees/pdf/standingorders.pdf
[BBM]
They could have instructed the president not sign without approval, but they didn't. Lubrano, et al., didn't even attempt to prevent it.
And then, of course, assume that they successfully rescind the consent decree. The NCAA, effectively, gave Penn State a plea deal, because:
A. Penn State had no prior violations.
B. Penn State cooperated.
If it is rescinded, Penn State is no longer cooperating. The NCAA would be justified in imposing a harsher penalty, including the death penalty.
So, they can rename the stadium after the former coach, "The Joe Paterno Memorial Flea Market." That would basically kill the economy in State College.
Rlaub44
10-04-2012, 06:24 PM
A panel of experts, including former NCAA presidents, disagree with the NCAA's handling of the sanctions and PSU's acceptance of same:
Former NCAA presidents did not shy away from giving their opinions on the NCAA’s procedure or how Penn State handled the sanctions.
Cedric Dempsey, NCAA president from 1994 through 2002, said Penn State should not have agreed to the consent package that NCAA President Mark Emmert presented.
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/10/03/3358389/panel-ncaa-too-heavy-handed-with.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop#storylink =cpy
Reader
11-30-2012, 04:12 PM
Penn State integrity monitor releases first report
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Penn-State-integrity-monitor-releases-first-report/bnVsg_hBYUWYfpaZcjNkHw.cspx
Sen. George Mitchell, the independent third-party athletics integrity monitor for Penn State, issued his first report on the University's performance under the Athletics Integrity Agreement, which was entered into as part of the consent decree imposed by the NCAA.
"This report indicates the strength of Penn State’s continuing commitment to integrity, responsibility, institutional control and ethical conduct, as well as the significant progress that Penn State has made since July," said University President Rodney Erickson..................
The report:
http://www.dlapiper-ncaapsu.com/ncaa_penn_state_report_1.pdf
Rlaub44
12-27-2012, 04:40 PM
State Senator Jake Corman (R-Centre) is introducing legislation to attempt to keep Penn State's NCAA fine in Pennsylvania. I was interested in Governor Corbett's statement, as I hadn't heard him weigh in on the NCAA's actions:
In a statement, Gov. Tom Corbett endorsed Corman's bill.
"The NCAA, as an athletic trade association, overstepped its authority by forcing Penn State to endure harsh, unjustified and unprecedented punishment," Corbett said.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/12/penn_state_sandusky_ncaa.html#incart_m-rpt-2
I'm only surprised because it isn't the usual middle-of-the-road statement one would expect from a politician; perhaps "One-Term Tommy" is hoping to rebuild support from Penn State alumni and fans?
Twindad
12-27-2012, 07:27 PM
I agree with the comments from the article stating the Pennsylvania legislature has no jurisdiction in this matter and can't enforce any law passed. Corbett and Corman are just looking for votes. It is long past time for Corbett to say anything, that passed when the BOT, of which he is a member, agreed to pay the fine. PSU doesn't have to pay the fine, they can just withdraw from the NCAA.
Rlaub44
12-27-2012, 09:56 PM
I agree with the comments from the article stating the Pennsylvania legislature has no jurisdiction in this matter and can't enforce any law passed. Corbett and Corman are just looking for votes. It is long past time for Corbett to say anything, that passed when the BOT, of which he is a member, agreed to pay the fine. PSU doesn't have to pay the fine, they can just withdraw from the NCAA.
Bolded by me:
It certainly seems like The Honorable Mr. Corbett is feeling left out by the other trustees these days. Recently he weighed in on his dissatisfaction with the raise given to PSU President Rodney Erickson:
Governor Corbett sits on the Board of Trustees but says he didn't get a heads-up about Erickson's salary bump.
"I was unaware of it until I saw it on the news," Corbett said when asked about it at an unrelated news conference Thursday.
"You're a member of the board of trustees, right? How do you feel about that?" Corbett was asked.
"I was a little surprised," he answered. "I think the timing is inappropriate."
http://www.abc27.com/story/20397385/corbett-alums-blast-psu-prez-ericksons-raise
J. J. in Phila
12-27-2012, 10:08 PM
I think you have to understand that all governors are members ex officio and have traditionally rarely attended the meeting.
Rlaub44
12-27-2012, 10:31 PM
I think you have to understand that all governors are members ex officio and have traditionally rarely attended the meeting.
Thanks JJ. I understand that, but was responding to the Governor's apparent disapproval of the 16% raise given to Erickson. The media is portraying it as if he is hurt at not having been consulted.
And in fairness, he certainly took an active role in the meeting where the decision was made to fire Paterno.
I'm starting to believe that Governors are like football referees - the best ones are the ones you don't notice as they do their job.
Rlaub44
12-27-2012, 10:44 PM
I was just reading about the sexual assaults at Oklahoma State University, and in many ways, the administration's response is very reminiscent of the Penn State handling of Sandusky. Many of the same elements are in place - failure to report under the Clery Act, not immediately contacting police, and trying to handle the situation "in-house".
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/12/27/3447771/emails-show-osu-officials-fretted.html#wgt=rcntnews
Obviously the age of the victims in OK makes a difference, but if there had been athletic department involvement, I think it would be interesting to see how the NCAA would respond, after the precedent they set for themselves in the PSU situation.
It is striking how little attention has been given to this case in comparison, lacking the involvement of a famous football coach.
J. J. in Phila
12-28-2012, 01:21 AM
Thanks JJ. I understand that, but was responding to the Governor's apparent disapproval of the 16% raise given to Erickson. The media is portraying it as if he is hurt at not having been consulted.
I think that more political. Nobody likes highly paid administrators,
And in fairness, he certainly took an active role in the meeting where the decision was made to fire Paterno.
I don't think he'll be making that mistake again.
I'm starting to believe that Governors are like football referees - the best ones are the ones you don't notice as they do their job.
Governors, who frankly have more important things do, are largely ceremonial on boards like this. They literally have all the rights of membership, but none of the obligations. Ideally, they never attend.
I was there during Thornburgh's term, and I don't recall one instance when he actually attended.
The problem is, the Trustees ceded much of their authority to the president. They might have done so even before Spanier. The BOT was largely ceremonial.
Reader
01-01-2013, 05:21 PM
Governor to sue NCAA over Penn state sanctions
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19231640&ps=1018&srce=news_class&action=2&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_NKNWU00L2_UNEWS
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Gov. Tom Corbett said Tuesday he plans to sue the NCAA in federal court over sanctions imposed against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.
The Republican governor scheduled a news conference for Wednesday on Penn State's campus in State College to announce the filing in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg.
The sanctions, agreed to by the university in July, included a $60 million fine that would be used nationally to finance child abuse prevention grants. State and federal lawmakers have raised objections to the money being spent outside Pennsylvania.
A message seeking comment on the expected lawsuit was left with the NCAA on Tuesday.
More at link..............
Rlaub44
01-01-2013, 07:29 PM
Governor to sue NCAA over Penn state sanctions
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19231640&ps=1018&srce=news_class&action=2&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_NKNWU00L2_UNEWS
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Gov. Tom Corbett said Tuesday he plans to sue the NCAA in federal court over sanctions imposed against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.
The Republican governor scheduled a news conference for Wednesday on Penn State's campus in State College to announce the filing in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg.
The sanctions, agreed to by the university in July, included a $60 million fine that would be used nationally to finance child abuse prevention grants. State and federal lawmakers have raised objections to the money being spent outside Pennsylvania.
A message seeking comment on the expected lawsuit was left with the NCAA on Tuesday.
More at link..............
When I posted several days ago about Corbett's statement regarding State Sen. Corman's proposed legislation, I thought something seemed odd about the strongly worded stance Corbett was taking; I just realized why.
His statement at that time "The NCAA, as an athletic trade association, overstepped its authority by forcing Penn State to endure harsh, unjustified and unprecedented punishment" sounded as if he had reverted to his old position as Attorney General announcing charges against someone.
I'm anxious for his press conference to find out what he believes he can accomplish with this grandstanding gesture.
J. J. in Phila
01-01-2013, 08:51 PM
I think the accomplishment will be to try to persuade some Penn State fans to vote for him in 2014. :)
Seriously, they have a shot at claiming the fine is excessive, but I'd question if the state has standing.
BetteDavisEyes
01-02-2013, 11:54 AM
Pennsylvania to sue NCAA over Penn State
Governor says sanctions unlawful, overreaching
Author: By Michael Martinez and Stephanie Gallman CNN
Published On: Jan 01 2013 08:33:04 PM EST Updated On: Jan 02 2013 11:43:01 AM EST
(CNN) -
The state of Pennsylvania will file a federal antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, seeking to have a judge throw out all sanctions the association levied against Penn State University in the wake of the child sex abuse scandal involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said Wednesday...
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Pennsylvania-to-sue-NCAA-over-Penn-State/-/1719418/17979114/-/mlcbla/-/index.html
BigCat
01-02-2013, 06:05 PM
I think the accomplishment will be to try to persuade some Penn State fans to vote for him in 2014. :)
Seriously, they have a shot at claiming the fine is excessive, but I'd question if the state has standing.
Yep. That was my first thought: He's pandering to Penn State football fans. I don't think it will work, however. A large segment of the fans HATE the man.
Rlaub44
01-02-2013, 07:25 PM
I just finished reading the full text of Corbett's filing; very interesting arguments. Still not sure if the State has standing, or if the suit has merit under the Sherman Act, but it appears thoroughly researched and should provide for good discussion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118731735/Corbett-vs-Ncaa-01022013
J. J. in Phila
01-03-2013, 02:35 AM
I just finished reading the full text of Corbett's filing; very interesting arguments. Still not sure if the State has standing, or if the suit has merit under the Sherman Act, but it appears thoroughly researched and should provide for good discussion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118731735/Corbett-vs-Ncaa-01022013
I doubt if Corbett could show standing.
The suit claims that a whole bunch of people could be injured and the University will lose alumni donations. Those things did not happen this year. Merchandise with logo sales were down, but he'd have to show it was because the team can't play in bowl games.
The argument that the NCAA can't punish for this act is probably covered in the NCAA's parliamentary authority, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, which states that conduct "tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb it's well-being , or hampering it in its work" is grounds for disciplinary action, even if not specified in the bylaws (p. 644).
The due process requirement would work, if Erickson hadn't signed the consent decree.
Rlaub44
01-03-2013, 05:14 AM
I doubt if Corbett could show standing.
The suit claims that a whole bunch of people could be injured and the University will lose alumni donations. Those things did not happen this year. Merchandise with logo sales were down, but he'd have to show it was because the team can't play in bowl games.
I'm not arguing the merit of the suit, but in fact, attendance at Penn State home games was down significantly this past year, which certainly translates to less income for the university, local businesses, etc. In addition, applications to attend Penn State are also down, albeit following a record high from the previous year. Without necessarily establishing causality, those are two documented ways one could argue that the NCAA's sanctions have created injury.
The argument that the NCAA can't punish for this act is probably covered in the NCAA's parliamentary authority, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, which states that conduct "tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb it's well-being , or hampering it in its work" is grounds for disciplinary action, even if not specified in the bylaws (p. 644).
I doubt even the NCAA could make a case that they themselves were harmed by Sandusky's actions or any coverup that followed. That reasoning has also never been offered by Emmert when explaining the NCAA's involvement.
The due process requirement would work, if Erickson hadn't signed the consent decree.
That is why some observers feel the University had a strong case if it had filed a lawsuit instead of Corbett:
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2013/01/mike_missanelli_thinks_penn_st.html#incart_river_d efault
J. J. in Phila
01-03-2013, 09:40 AM
I'm not arguing the merit of the suit, but in fact, attendance at Penn State home games was down significantly this past year, which certainly translates to less income for the university, local businesses, etc. In addition, applications to attend Penn State are also down, albeit following a record high from the previous year. Without necessarily establishing causality, those are two documented ways one could argue that the NCAA's sanctions have created injury.
Not that much. Even thought the opener was down it was still relatively close. Corbett has to the "but for" claim, i.e., "but for the sanctions, sales would be better." It can be argued that Sandusky and the coverup, not sanctions, are causing the drop in attendance, or that it was the economy in general.
I doubt even the NCAA could make a case that they themselves were harmed by Sandusky's actions or any coverup that followed. That reasoning has also never been offered by Emmert when explaining the NCAA's involvement.
Again, NCAA involvement is not an issue; they should have a broad ability to judge the fitness of their members and to inflict penalties. There is case law that I have seen in Pennsylvania on it, that I have seen over the years.
That is why some observers feel the University had a strong case if it had filed a lawsuit instead of Corbett:
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2013/01/mike_missanelli_thinks_penn_st.html#incart_river_d efault
The problem is that the University is the party, and they did not choose to exercise their due process rights (and still have not). The thing is, if the consent decree "goes away," it is very likely that the NCAA could issue a death penalty, while preserving due process rights.
I'd also be troubled about the 10/13/98 meeting between various LE types and Ganter. There may have been more contact between LE and Penn State in 1998.
Reader
01-03-2013, 11:18 AM
I agree with the comments from the article stating the Pennsylvania legislature has no jurisdiction in this matter and can't enforce any law passed. Corbett and Corman are just looking for votes. It is long past time for Corbett to say anything, that passed when the BOT, of which he is a member, agreed to pay the fine. PSU doesn't have to pay the fine, they can just withdraw from the NCAA.
Haven't read the filing by Corbett as yet so can't comment on that..but was wondering about Twindad's comment that the school could 'just withdraw from the NCAA'.
If Corbett's suit is rejected or fails to win in court, is it still possible for them to drop out of the NCAA and would this remove all of the penalties and the fine? IOW, would the dropping out be retroactive to prior to the NCAA penalty?
How could they do this after the school already accepted the penalties with the approval of the board?
Tipstaff
01-03-2013, 11:34 AM
With all the rumors about O'Brien being courted by professional football perhaps Corbett and other Penn State big wigs are wondering if O'Brien leaves will they get another coach of his quality (???) to take on the coaching job with the loss of scholarships, no bowl games et
Are the powers that be concerned that coaching at Penn State over the next several years will lead to a revolving door of coaching staff? Thus a Hail Mary pass by Corbett?
J. J. in Phila
01-03-2013, 11:42 AM
If Corbett's suit is rejected or fails to win in court, is it still possible for them to drop out of the NCAA and would this remove all of the penalties and the fine? IOW, would the dropping out be retroactive to prior to the NCAA penalty?
How could they do this after the school already accepted the penalties with the approval of the board?
Respectfully snipped.
PSU could, in effect, resign from the NCAA, however, that would not remove the fine. They could only "conditionally resign retroactively" with the NCAA approval.
In either case, the NCAA could decline to "accept the resignation." The NCAA is a group of member schools that have entered into a contract; pulling out, without the consent of the NCAA as an entity, would be a violation of that contract.
Also, keep in mind that if the suit would be successful, nothing would prevent the NCAA from using their disciplinary procedures from imposing the death penalty.
Twindad
01-03-2013, 01:06 PM
Which is why it was readily accepted.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty
Rlaub44
01-03-2013, 02:37 PM
I'd also be troubled about the 10/13/98 meeting between various LE types and Ganter. There may have been more contact between LE and Penn State in 1998.
I'm still not convinced there is any connection between this clandestine meeting and the Sandusky problem; but whatever additional contact there might have been should come out in the perjury trials, which is another reason the criminal trials should have been allowed to occur before the full NCAA sanctions, in my opinion.
Rlaub44
01-03-2013, 02:54 PM
Which is why it was readily accepted.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty
Depends on who you ask.
Ray said the NCAA's Executive Committee discussed pulling the plug on the Penn State football program after it received NCAA President Mark Emmert's initial proposed sanctions.
He said the death penalty was quickly taken off the table.
"For a lot of people it's just too blunt of an instrument," Ray said. "No current players, staff or people connected with the football program" were part of the Sandusky cover-up.
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2012/07/23/ray-penn-state-death-penalty.html?page=all
Ray via email: Also, I chaired those meetings and I know that there was no discussion of threats if the consent decree was not accepted.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/six-steps-to-the-truth-with-dr-ed-ray-1127859/
Erickson and Emmert:
Penn State faced a multiyear shutdown of its football program had it not agreed with the sanctions imposed by the NCAA earlier this week, university President Rodney Erickson told ESPN (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty).
The football program at Penn State faced a four-year "death penalty," a complete cessation of football activities, Erickson said, according to the ESPN report, as well as fines well in excess of the $60 million levied.
The four-year death penalty option was confirmed by NCAA President Mark Emmert, who said in a separate interview with ESPN that what the network termed "a core group of NCAA school presidents" had agreed on the unprecedented sanctions.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/26/report-penn-state-faced-4-year-death-penalty/
And finally:
Emmert and Penn State President Rodney Erickson told ESPN's "Outside the Lines" on Wednesday (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty) that the majority of school presidents favored suspending the university's football program for four years.
Instead of either accepting that unprecedented punishment or forcing the NCAA to launch a formal investigation by refusing to accept sanctions, Erickson entered covert discussions with the NCAA in hopes of reaching a compromise that did not include the death penalty. The result was a defacto plea bargain in the form of the consent agreement Penn State leaders signed. In return for the NCAA taking the "death penalty" out of the punishment, Erickson agreed not to appeal penalties that included a four-year bowl ban, the nullification of 112 wins, massive scholarship reductions and a $60 million fine.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/penn-state-faced-four-years-no-football-had-231629377--ncaaf.html
Reader
01-03-2013, 05:09 PM
Comments about Corbett's suit on the PSARS twitter site after the press conference:
https://twitter.com/ps4rs
Altoona Mirror@AltoonaMirrorPA
Student leaders back Corbett's decision http://bit.ly/VCUpLc
Retweeted by PS4RS
Brian Dawson@DawsonPSU10
This PA v. NCAA lawsuit would be a 1000x easier if they challenged the validity of the Freeh Report from which the sanctions are based on
Retweeted by PS4RS
Onward State@OnwardState
Tom Corbett on CNN: I initially supported the sanctions, but we realized they didn't have the authority to do what they did."
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanPS4RS@PS4RS
V4 was "upset the sanctions were so broad that they impacted people who had absolutely nothing to do with the abuse" http://ow.ly/guxxf
Michael McCann@McCannSportsLaw
My analysis of Pennsylvania's new lawsuit against the NCAA + how the #NCAA can defend against it: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130102/penn-state-lawsuit-analysis/index.html … #PennState #Sandusky
Retweeted by PS4RS
StateCollege.com@StateCollegecom
NCAA Calls Corbett's Lawsuit 'An Affront to the Victims': http://ow.ly/gufyL
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanEugene Bodden@Swoll_21
#NCAA pulling the victims card again?....so bowl bans and elimination of scholarships is in the best interest of the victims #yeahok
PS4RS@PS4RS
Our statement regarding the State of PA lawsuit against NCAA: http://ow.ly/gueIe
Holly Swanson@StateCollegeMom
But he didn't file earlier so as to not interrupt the football season? Cringeworthy.
Retweeted by PS4RS
Zack Timko@ZTimko793
@TheVoice_Speaks because she brought up a good point? Why are PA people who let Sandusky take in foster kids not being held accountable?
Retweeted by PS4RS
Nicole Benedetti@Niki1352
Every Penn Stater knew the sanctions were unlawful & over the top. Knew the Freeh report was flawed. Where was Corbett then?
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanSteve Newman@MAHandTN
In a nutshell, Corbett is the arsonist who wants credit for putting out the fire.
Retweeted by PS4RS
Pete Thamel @SIPeteThamel
So what do we think, tweeps? Does Corbett's case have merit or is he pandering for voters with an election coming in two years? Discuss...
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanWPSU@WPSU
Paterno family issues statement on Corbett suit: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/01/02/3452333/paterno-family-issues-statement.html …
Retweeted by PS4RS
Evan Ponter@evanponter
Interesting that a lame duck Attorney General has granted #Corbett's lawsuit power, yet his office never consulted with Kathleen Kane. #PSU
Retweeted by PS4RS
Eric Feinstein@ericjfeinstein
This is bizarre. Corbett taking a big step challenging the NCAA, after he supported sanctions in July.
Retweeted by PS4RS
Audrey Snyder@audsnyder4
Using the "he didn't want to interfere with the football season" excuse doesn't help the culture image of #PSU.
Retweeted by PS4RS
Dan Wetzel@DanWetzel
Pennsylvania v NCAA could be interesting, but this is some serious political grandstanding here
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanBrian Barcaro@BrianBarcaro
Corbett decided to sue the @NCAA after the GOP AG got thumped in the recent elections. #prelude
Retweeted by PS4RS
Charles Thompson@ChasThompson1
General Counsel Jim Schultz says case hinges on idea that NCAA, as a trade association, did not follow its own rules or process. #pennstate
Retweeted by PS4RS
Chris Otto@YDRChrisOtto
Corbett: The Freeh Report is incomplete and it was NOT adopted by PSU Board of Trustees. BOT not consulted.
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanDrew Balis@drewBbalis
Corbett says he told BOT chair and Rodney Erickson over the weekend about suit, but they were not invited to be a part of it.
Retweeted by PS4RS
Casey McDermott@caseymcdermott
Corbett on July 23: "Part of that corrective process is to accept the serious penalties imposed today by the NCAA..." h/t @houseofbuddy
Retweeted by PS4RS
JoePa's Doghouse@RowlffDogg
Somewhere, Rodney Erickson is frantically scribbling an apology note.
Retweeted by PS4RS
Anna Orso@annaorsoTDC
RT @caseymcdermott: Corbett's full comments from July 23, 2012, can be found here: http://bit.ly/JnbeF4
Retweeted by PSARS
Mark Wogenrich@MarkWogenrich
Statement from Paterno family on Pennsylvania's suit against NCAA. http://bit.ly/YSkGqb
Retweeted by PSARS
JanAnna Orso@annaorsoTDC
In Paterno family statement, they say their own review of the Freeh Report is nearing completion.
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanAmy Z. Quinn@AmyZQuinn
Welcome to your Corbett re-election campaign, Penn Staters.
Retweeted by PS4RS
JanPasik@Pasik1982
while i love but corbett is doing, this is such a political move. Last summer he was in full agreement with the sanctions. #pennstate
Retweeted by PS4RS
Reader
01-03-2013, 05:21 PM
Some more PSARS twitter comments from today:
PS4RS@PS4RS
ICYMI: Have something you want to ask @GovernorCorbett? Submit your question to @witfnews: http://ow.ly/gw4aM
Matt Moore@MattMooreAP
Did the #NCAA really "pile on" #PennState in the aftermath of the Jerry #Sandusky scandal? @JimLitke examines the situ… http://say.ly/vaH4ThJ
Retweeted by PS4RS
PennLive.com@pennlive
NCAA lawsuit: Potential GOP challenger to @GovernorCorbett in 2014 questions lawsuit's timing http://ow.ly/gvZmK
Retweeted by PS4RS
PS4RS@PS4RS
#PennState Trustee Lubrano talks about PA lawsuit against NCAA: http://ow.ly/gvaRN
Megan Lello@MeganLello
PA Gov. Corbett will take questions on witf's Radio #SmartTalk at 9a tomorrow. What do you want to ask him? http://tinyurl.com/cfc2eok @witfnews
Retweeted by PS4RS
Deadspin@Deadspin
Everything you need to know about Pennsylvania's lawsuit against the NCAA (and why you should support it): http://deadsp.in/n9lsxuD
Retweeted by PS4RS
Reader
01-03-2013, 05:39 PM
Sections 4 and 5 of Corbett's suit:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/550546-corbett.html
4.The NCAA is a trade association of competitors, formed for the
purpose of promoting intercollegiate athletic competition, in part through self regulating its members to ensure fair competition on the playing field and the protection of participating student-athletes. While the antitrust laws permit such an association to impose and enforce rules or standards to promote certain pro competitive purposes, such rules must be reasonably related to those purposes, and must be enforced through procedures designed to prevent their arbitrary application.
5.The NCAA's sanctions against Penn State fail to meet these
requirements. The NCAA has punished Penn State without citing a single concrete NCAA rule that Penn State has broken, for conduct that in no way compromised the NCAA's mission of fair competition, and with a complete disregard for the NCAA's own enforcement procedures. In so doing, the NCAA and its members have forced Penn State to forfeit the valuable competitive advantages of full participation in the NCAA.
If the NCAA, as they stated, based their decision on the Freeh Report's findings, it seems to me they did meet the requirement cited in #4. One of the principle findings in Freeh was that the cover up of the abuse by the administration and football personnel was because of their fear of negative publicity, which they thought would hurt PSU's reputation and ablitity to compete. To me, this violated the mission of 'fair competition'.
Rlaub44
01-03-2013, 07:21 PM
If the NCAA, as they stated, based their decision on the Freeh Report's findings, it seems to me they did meet the requirement cited in #4. One of the principle findings in Freeh was that the cover up of the abuse by the administration and football personnel was because of their fear of negative publicity, which they thought would hurt PSU's reputation and ablitity to compete. To me, this violated the mission of 'fair competition'.
Respectfully snipped & bolded by me:
And that is one of the grave failings of the Freeh report. His team drew the conclusion that McQueary's report was not forwarded to the authorities out of the concern of negative publicity. But Freeh never spoke to Curley, Schultz, McQueary or Paterno, and Spanier didn't tell the investigators that, so what turns this from speculation into proven facts to support the punishments handed down?
In the emails between the administrators, the only reason they discussed was the desire to confront Sandusky before involving other agencies, in a ridiculous attempt to handle it "humane"ly. But this first-person evidence was dismissed as a theory in favor of the Commission's pet motive; so it was written and so it became accepted.
I doubt that we will ever get the full truth out of any of the men facing trial for the coverup, but that doesn't mean that Freeh's suggestion is automatically true either.
And the NCAA admitted in the consent decree that "The sexual abuse of children on a university campus by a former university official - and even the active concealment of that abuse - while despicable, ordinarily would not be actionable by the NCAA." So the Freeh Commission's "reasonable conclusion" became the "culture" of "fear of or deference to the omnipotent football program" that the NCAA used to excuse their involvement in a matter that would have normally not have been an actionable offense.
All that said, there is no doubt that this lawsuit is a thinly-veiled ploy by Corbett to gain support from Penn State alums, and also to deflect attention from his slow-play as AG before Kathleen Kane, who ran on a platform of investigating Corbett's handling of the Sandusky case, is sworn in and begins her term.
J. J. in Phila
01-03-2013, 08:01 PM
Respectfully snipped & bolded by me:
And that is one of the grave failings of the Freeh report. His team drew the conclusion that McQueary's report was not forwarded to the authorities out of the concern of negative publicity. But Freeh never spoke to Curley, Schultz, McQueary or Paterno, and Spanier didn't tell the investigators that, so what turns this from speculation into proven facts to support the punishments handed down?
Respectfully snipped.
This is why I'm looking at 1998. Everybody in that 10/13/98 meeting, except Ganter, was involved in May with the Sandusky investigation.
Freeh actually suppressed some of Schultz's notes; some appeared in the Spainer presentment but not in the Freeh Report. That presentment spends the first 6 pages talking about the 1998 incident.
Sloane, who was at the 1998 meeting, was arrested a month before Spanier. The drug charges look excessive, based on the amount of drugs LE claims. They could be trying to pressure him.
I think there is a bombshell coming with regard to 1998.
Twindad
01-03-2013, 08:32 PM
Are they trying to pressure him to speak up or shut up?
Rlaub44
01-03-2013, 09:41 PM
Respectfully snipped.
This is why I'm looking at 1998. Everybody in that 10/13/98 meeting, except Ganter, was involved in May with the Sandusky investigation.
Freeh actually suppressed some of Schultz's notes; some appeared in the Spainer presentment but not in the Freeh Report. That presentment spends the first 6 pages talking about the 1998 incident.
Sloane, who was at the 1998 meeting, was arrested a month before Spanier. The drug charges look excessive, based on the amount of drugs LE claims. They could be trying to pressure him.
I think there is a bombshell coming with regard to 1998.
So if PSU admins had developed a relationship with LE and the DA in 1998 regarding the complaint that was dropped through no action of Penn State's, why wouldn't that have made it easier for them to involve authorities in 2001?
And if there is a bombshell related to the 98 investigation, would it be a black mark on Penn State, or on Gricar and the police agencies?
The other problem is that, in addition to not knowing for certain what that meeting was about, we also don't know who else beside Ganter may have attended from Penn State's end.
I am interested in your thoughts about who has reason to pressure Sloane, and as Twindad asked, in which direction you think the pressure is directed.
J. J. in Phila
01-03-2013, 10:34 PM
So if PSU admins had developed a relationship with LE and the DA in 1998 regarding the complaint that was dropped through no action of Penn State's, why wouldn't that have made it easier for them to involve authorities in 2001?
That I will not even guess at that.
And if there is a bombshell related to the 98 investigation, would it be a black mark on Penn State, or on Gricar and the police agencies?
At least Penn State (which jibs with the 1998-2000 vacated games penalty). If there were in depth discussions about the "Sandusky situation" in 1998, they would obviously know that 2001 was a problem.
The other problem is that, in addition to not knowing for certain what that meeting was about, we also don't know who else beside Ganter may have attended from Penn State's end.
Gamin indicated that Sloane was involved in the 1998 investigation. So we do know that it was an "investigation" and that everyone from LE was involved with Sandusky. That should raise a big red flag, or perhaps a field of them.
Now, the last grand jury presentment spent 6 pages talking about 1998. The person closest to the DA and that is available was arrested on drug charges about a month prior to Spanier being indited. That gives prosecutors very strong leverage.
I am interested in your thoughts about who has reason to pressure Sloane, and as Twindad asked, in which direction you think the pressure is directed.
Most of it is on the Gricar thread, but Sloane is being charged with trafficking for what prosecutors say he bought for $250. From what I can tell, that is not a lot of money for someone wanting to sell drugs. It looks like possibly overcharging. Overcharging would give prosecutors a lot of leverage.
Reader
01-04-2013, 01:25 AM
And that is one of the grave failings of the Freeh report. His team drew the conclusion that McQueary's report was not forwarded to the authorities out of the concern of negative publicity. But Freeh never spoke to Curley, Schultz, McQueary or Paterno, and Spanier didn't tell the investigators that, so what turns this from speculation into proven facts to support the punishments handed down?
In the emails between the administrators, the only reason they discussed was the desire to confront Sandusky before involving other agencies, in a ridiculous attempt to handle it "humane"ly. But this first-person evidence was dismissed as a theory in favor of the Commission's pet motive; so it was written and so it became accepted.
I doubt that we will ever get the full truth out of any of the men facing trial for the coverup, but that doesn't mean that Freeh's suggestion is automatically true either.
RSBM
True, the Freeh group was not allowed to interview those 4 men cited due to legal actions they were involved in, however, they did have the emails from 1998, the police report, interviews with LE involved, the DPW worker, counselors Dr. Chambers and Seasock. They investigated whether there was a report made in 2001 and had the grand jury report with Curley's and Shultz's statement and that they were charged with lying and not reporting the abuse. They had McQueary's testimony of what he had seen and done and how he reported it to Paterno, Curley and Shultz, however, no police report of the incident existed. Paterno admitted he was told the abuse was sexual and that he did not report it to LE either. Besides this evidence, Freeh stated that his group interviewed over 400 people from the school and other agencies involved who provided them with more information of procedures, atmosphere and how things worked at the school regarding the football team. I think their conclusion was a reasonable, not speculative, one.
Several of the articles linked in the twitter entries above gave some analysis of Corbett's suit:
1/Deadspin is in favor of the suit but most of the comments do not agree with him:
http://deadspin.com/5972596/?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
............So is the lawsuit an attempt to absolve Penn State officials of any alleged wrongdoing?
No, though that hasn't stopped writers like Christine Brennan from viewing it that way. In fact, the suit says explicitly that "the Commonwealth emphatically repudiates the conduct of the university officials who knew about the underlying offenses and failed to report them to law enforcement authorities." It's an important distinction, since the NCAA has already reacted to the lawsuit by shamelessly hiding behind Sandusky's victims. But the courts are there to take care of the three Penn State administrators still facing criminal charges. The target here is the NCAA, and the NCAA alone, because the NCAA—a legal and moral enormity that is nothing more than a complex worker's-comp avoidance scheme—often does what it wants and comes up with some airy bull**** to justify having done so. In the case of Penn State, the NCAA used the horrors of Sandusky's crimes to assume powers it doesn't actually have. Hate the school all you want. Penn State is firmly on the side of the angels here.
Typical comment: So, the NCAA is full of ****, so therefore we should support a lawsuit that is borne more out of the political motivations of a Governor who is also full of ****? Sorry, I don't buy it.
But maybe it would be better to illustrate this within the context of the power that the NCAA *does* have--to regulate and punish for the purpose of ensuring competitive integrity:
A school and it's players are punished if one of the players receives illicit benefits, because it means that school had the services of a player that it might not otherwise have had. In the case of Sandusky, the team was allowed to continue using an excellent defensive coordinator because he recieved the "benefit" of not being charged with a crime when it was discovered that he was raping children in the locker rooms. Then, Penn State continued to receive the leadership of another great coach, because that coach received the benefit of having no consequences for actively concealing the illegal behavior of his coach and friend.
In other words, Penn State received a competitive advantage that they wouldn't have otherwise had (if the administration had followed the law) because they provided Sandusky and then Paterno with the benefit of covering up an incredibly heinous crime.
The NCAA may be full of ****, but I refuse to believe that the sanctions they handed down as a response to the systemic cover-up of a child rape ring is the banner we need to hoist up to rally the masses to end the NCAA.
2/http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0102/Pennsylvania-suing-NCAA-over-Penn-State-sanctions.-Does-it-have-a-case
.........Where the state might encounter difficulty is proving that the NCAA pressured Penn State President Rodney Erickson into what Corbett says was “silent compliance with its sanctions by threatening to impose even more debilitating sanctions to the football program.” In his complaint, Corbett wants the consent agreement the university signed with the NCAA to be declared illegal.
Mark Conrad, who teaches sports law at Fordham University in New York City, says the university took swift action in signing off with the NCAA actions without challenge, which will make it difficult to suggest they were coerced.
“It seems the university wanted to wash their hands of [the scandal] pretty quickly. I don’t know how [the state] is going to prove they were forced,” Mr. Conrad says.
3/Michael McCann
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130102/penn-state-lawsuit-analysis/index.html
.............The NCAA can attack the lawsuit on several grounds.
First, the NCAA can insist the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacks standing to sue the NCAA. This argument would be simple: Corbett does not work for Penn State, and the Pennsylvania government's relationship to Penn State is mainly based on financial assistance rather than in direction. Therefore, they lack the right to file a lawsuit over Penn State's sanction.
-----------
Second, the NCAA can argue it was contractually authorized to sanction Penn State, which is a member of the NCAA by voluntary choice, not by requirement. The NCAA can cite at least two contracts: the membership agreement between Penn State and the NCAA which requires Penn State to follow the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws, and the consent decree in which Penn State clearly accepted sanction for violating specific provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws. The NCAA could thus argue that it has explained its grounds for sanction and that the only party who can commence challenge -- Penn State -- has relinquished that right.
-----------
Lastly, the NCAA may go after Corbett for his action -- or inaction -- in prosecuting Sandusky as Attorney General of Pennsylvania from 2005 to 2011. There was a three-year gap between a grand jury charged with reviewing Sandusky and Sandusky's indictment in November 2011, with a suspicion that Corbett, running for governor in 2009 and 2010, proceeded slowly so as to avoid alienating Penn State alums. The NCAA could maintain Corbett's own behavior contributed to the injury for which he now seeks redress. Corbett's supporters, however, contend he proceeded deliberately in order to develop the most airtight case against Sandusky, who would be convicted on 45 of 48 counts.
Tipstaff
01-04-2013, 07:20 AM
Penn State hasn't lost the support of a wealth donor.
Football coach O'Brien to stay at Penn State
By Mark Dent / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Penn State and Bill O'Brien's agent confirmed tonight that the Penn State head coach will keep his position the football team, nullifying the reports and rumors linking him to NFL jobs this week.
O'Brien spoke tonight to the Harrisburg Patriot News, saying "I'm not a one-and-done guy. I made a commitment to these players at Penn State and that's what I am going to do. I'm not gonna cut and run after one year. That's for sure."
O'Brien's agent, Joe Linta, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette O'Brien was "very excited for the upcoming season."
The Patriot News also reported that Penn State would increase O'Brien's yearly salary. Penn State acting athletic director Dave Joyner did not respond to interview requests.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/psu/bill-obriens-future-uncertain-between-penn-state-nfl-jobs-668918/#ixzz2H0Zh2VxE
Tipstaff
01-04-2013, 07:33 AM
Specifics on the wealthy donating to Penn State....
From Forbes Magazine (on line)
Brian Solomon, Forbes Staff
Covering billionaires in sports, tech, and more.
Bill O'Brien Stays At Penn State With Help From Billionaire Booster
As many NFL teams searched for their next head coach this week, one name that was bandied about was Bill O’Brien, head coach at Penn State. This sent shivers down the spines of many Penn State alumni, who didn’t want to see their team’s new leader depart beleaguered Happy Valley after just a single season.
However, with monetary help from billionaire booster Terrence Pegula, Penn State managed to retain O’Brien’s services. According to David Jones of The Patriot News, O’Brien will forgo the chance to jump to the NFL after he was given two concessions: forthcoming “structural and personnel changes in the Penn State athletic department” and a significant pay raise.
According to Jones, Pegula has donated $1.3 million to be added to O’Brien’s salary in 2013. That gift takes his total pay to $3.6 million, making O’Brien among the highest-paid coaches in college football.
Pegula, who made his fortune in natural gas and currently owns the Buffalo Sabres hockey team, had previously donated $103 million to his alma mater. That gift went toward building a new hockey arena and creating a division one-level team to compete in it. Pegula follows in the footsteps of other major billionaire sports boosters like Phil Knight at Oregon and T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State. As of the Forbes 400 in September, we estimated his total net worth at $3 billion, enough to make him the 132nd richest person in the U.S.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/01/03/bill-obrien-stays-at-penn-state-with-help-from-billionaire-booster/
On the Frobes Web page there is a link to another article asking if the Sandusky scandal helped Penn State make more money. According to an article by Chris Smith another Forbes Staff writer Penn State received $208.7 Million Dollars over the last fiscal year the second highest amount Penn State ever collected.
J. J. in Phila
01-04-2013, 07:42 AM
Game attendance is down, but the trend started in, at the latest, 2009, before the scandal and the sanctions.
Reader
01-04-2013, 12:41 PM
AP: Criminal cases made Pa. AG hand over NCAA suit
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19235422&ps=1011&cat=&cps=0&lang=en
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania's attorney general said she granted Gov. Tom Corbett the authority to file a federal antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA because the litigation could present a conflict of interest as her office prosecutes three Penn State administrators............
"The size and scope of that criminal case, which includes extensive grand jury testimony and other confidential information related to the university,made it untenable for the Office of Attorney General to pursue a civil lawsuit involving the NCAA's sanctions of Penn State," Kelly said. "Given the serious nature of both these cases, keeping these matters separate is the best course of action for the people of Pennsylvania."............
Kelly said her office received a request from Corbett's lawyer James D. Schultz on Friday, Dec. 14, for permission to sue the NCAA. Her office granted it three days later, she said. That authority, signed by the chief of her litigation section, can be terminated or amended by the attorney general's office, and it does not cover any appeals.
More at link.....
J. J. in Phila
01-04-2013, 04:50 PM
Politically brilliant. Corbett files the suit and will make Kane be the one to withdraw it, or requires her to support it.
J. J. in Phila
01-07-2013, 01:13 AM
Legal scholars are now weighing in on the standing issue: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/01/07/3456577/legal-experts-question-states.html
I think we all nailed it here first.
Reader
01-08-2013, 05:53 PM
A couple of interesting editorials about the Corbett suit:
Pennsylvania Suing the NCAA: More Than Meets The Eye
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leeigel/2013/01/07/pennsylvania-suing-the-ncaa-more-than-meets-the-eye/
NCAA lawsuit has dark logic
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20130108_NCAA_lawsuit_has_dark_logic.html
Twindad
01-09-2013, 07:44 PM
More about Terrence Pegula: http://commonsense2.com/2011/12/naturalgasdrilling/connecting-the-dots-the-marcellus-natural-gas-play-players-part-1/
The Second Mile board member 1997 and large contributions to Tom Corbett.
J. J. in Phila
01-09-2013, 08:33 PM
More about Terrence Pegula: http://commonsense2.com/2011/12/naturalgasdrilling/connecting-the-dots-the-marcellus-natural-gas-play-players-part-1/
The Second Mile board member 1997 and large contributions to Tom Corbett.
I don't there is anything too unusual in this. I contribute small amounts to political candidates (though not Corbett) and to Penn State.
Twindad
01-10-2013, 09:15 AM
http://marcellus-shale.us/political-contributions.htm
Terrence Pegula and his wife have contributed over $200,000 to Corbett which, to me anyway, seems like a large amount. Don't forget he also donated over $100,000,000 to PSU for ice hockey. I don't believe he spent all that money expecting nothing in return.
J. J. in Phila
01-10-2013, 10:39 AM
http://marcellus-shale.us/political-contributions.htm
Terrence Pegula and his wife have contributed over $200,000 to Corbett which, to me anyway, seems like a large amount. Don't forget he also donated over $100,000,000 to PSU for ice hockey. I don't believe he spent all that money expecting nothing in return.
The return in relation to the donation at Penn State could have been a tax deduction and his name on a building.
The Corbett donation could help him access, without actually a quid pro quo, or knowing that Corbett would favor policies that would net Pegula more than the donation or even ideology.
The donation accounts for less that 1% of what Corbett spent.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/state_candidates.phtml?s=PA&y=2010&f=G
Twindad
01-10-2013, 04:47 PM
[QUOTE=J. J. in Phila;8709829]The return in relation to the donation at Penn State could have been a tax deduction and his name on a building.
I wouldn't know about that I've never had that much money!
The Corbett donation could help him access, without actually a quid pro quo, or knowing that Corbett would favor policies that would net Pegula more than the donation or even ideology.
You mean things like this? http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/governor-corbett-announces-formation-of-marcellus-shale-advisory-commission-117593393.html Want to guess who is on it?
The donation accounts for less that 1% of what Corbett spent.
What about the donations made thru business: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=East_Resources
His wife Kim, donated $360,000 to Corbett in 2010.
To me it seems Corbett filed the suit with the NCAA to try and obtain a better return on investment.
J. J. in Phila
01-10-2013, 06:14 PM
I wouldn't know about that I've never had that much money!
Well, there are many people that do. If I had a few million, I'd be donating more to Penn State.
You mean things like this? http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/governor-corbett-announces-formation-of-marcellus-shale-advisory-commission-117593393.html Want to guess who is on it?
It makes sense. Corbett is a longtime supporter of Marcellus Shale development. People that will profit from it will support Corbett.
What about the donations made thru business: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=East_Resources
His wife Kim, donated $360,000 to Corbett in 2010.
That total was less than 2% than what Corbett raised.
You'll note that the same site says: Pegula and his wife, Kim, were frequent funders of pro-drilling politicians.
To me it seems Corbett filed the suit with the NCAA to try and obtain a better return on investment.
It has more to do with trying to appease alumni. There could be another factor. Corbett can't claim that the NCAA is taking the money out of PA if they spend most of it in PA. It could be an attempt to keep them spending it in state.
Twindad
01-18-2013, 09:06 AM
http://newslanc.com/2013/01/06/crony-in-the-court-corbett-and-the-ncaa-lawsuit/
A look at who is handling the case in PA. I think it's interesting to note that Judge Yvette Kane is also hearing the cases regarding insurance coverage for Sandusky's defense.
J. J. in Phila
01-18-2013, 09:49 AM
http://newslanc.com/2013/01/06/crony-in-the-court-corbett-and-the-ncaa-lawsuit/
A look at who is handling the case in PA. I think it's interesting to note that Judge Yvette Kane is also hearing the cases regarding insurance coverage for Sandusky's defense.
The relationship between Ridge and Corbett is tenuous at best.
The assignment of judges was not under Corbett's control, nor was their initial appointment. Under "senatorial courtesy" all would have needed the support of Spector.
This is how works in all states.
Twindad
01-18-2013, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=J. J. in Phila;8737858]The relationship between Ridge and Corbett is tenuous at best.
Tom Corbett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Corbett then returned to private practice, also serving as an adviser to the gubernatorial campaign of Tom Ridge. Following Ridge's victory, Corbett served on a number of state commissions including the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, which he served as chairman."
And this:
"In 1995, Corbett was appointed to the position of State Attorney General by Governor Ridge to fill the remainder of the term left by the conviction of Ernie Preate."
They appear very familiar with each other.
How politics work in Pa. is new to me, but I'm learning.
J. J. in Phila
01-18-2013, 09:17 PM
[QUOTE=J. J. in Phila;8737858]The relationship between Ridge and Corbett is tenuous at best.
Tom Corbett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Corbett)
"Corbett then returned to private practice, also serving as an adviser to the gubernatorial campaign of Tom Ridge. Following Ridge's victory, Corbett served on a number of state commissions including the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, which he served as chairman."
And this:
"In 1995, Corbett was appointed to the position of State Attorney General by Governor Ridge to fill the remainder of the term left by the conviction of Ernie Preate."
They appear very familiar with each other.
How politics work in Pa. is new to me, but I'm learning.
Very tenuous. The PCCD meets for a few hours four times a year. They give out federal grant money and collect statistics. It is a traditional "office" for someone, of the same political party, that ran for/served as AG. It is voluntary.
Corbett was a temporary replacement as AG who served for about 18 months.
Twindad
01-28-2013, 12:04 PM
http://live.psu.edu/story/63815
"Del Giorno’s position was created as part of the University’s work to fulfill the requirements of the Athletics Integrity Agreement entered into in August 2012 among the NCAA, the Big Ten and Penn State. The position will be in addition to the compliance officer already working within Intercollegiate Athletics. Del Giorno will oversee compliance with obligations of integrity, civility, ethics and institutional control. The position is expected to report to the University-wide chief compliance officer, a position currently being filled by the University."
Reader
01-31-2013, 08:44 PM
Negative narrative about Penn State starting to change, Franco Harris says
http://articles.mcall.com/2013-01-26/sports/mc-franco-harris-penn-state-0126-20130126_1_freeh-report-sandusky-investigation-wake-of-sandusky-case
Franco Harris, others defend Paterno, university in wake of Sandusky case.
Franco Harris doesn't believe the NCAA sanctions against Penn State will stand, nor is he convinced that the trials of former Penn State officials will occur. Further, the former Penn State running back said, he sees opinions shifting about his alma mater's role in the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
"The narrative is starting to change," Harris said Friday. "The [grand jury] presentment and the Freeh Report are falling apart. The NCAA [sanctions], that will fall apart. There will be no trials for [Tim] Curley and [Gary] Schultz. There's no case. We're starting to find the truth."
More than 200 turned out Friday in King of Prussia for an event Harris hosted and funded, presenting a defense of Penn State and late football coach Joe Paterno. "Upon Further Review: Penn State One Year Later" offered a critical look at the Sandusky investigation, former FBI Director Louis Freeh's findings and the media's coverage of the entire scandal.............
"Yes, in time we believe the truth will eventually vindicate Penn State and Joe Paterno," said Eileen Morgan, a 1990 Penn State graduate who has analyzed the grand jury presentment and the Freeh Report. "But most important, we seek the truth for the victims [of Sandusky], so what happened … doesn't happen again."............
Penn State said last summer that the Freeh Report cost $6.5 million. Anthony Lubrano, a panelist Friday and a Penn State's trustee, estimated the cost at closer to $12 million.
Panelist Ray Blehar, who has served as a U.S. government analyst for 27 years, broke down the first of a series of reports he's writing on the Freeh Report and the NCAA sanctions. Blehar, who has an MBA from Penn State, said he wrote a letter to Penn State President Rodney Erickson last year offering to help rebut the report's findings.
More at link.......
J. J. in Phila
01-31-2013, 10:41 PM
I think those trials will be going and I expect the sanctions to hold (though the fine money might remain in PA, mostly).
Rlaub44
02-18-2013, 10:36 PM
NCAA President Mark Emmert's reputation continues to take hits in the media:
http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/02/ncaa_president_mark_emmerts_bl.html#incart_river_d efault
J. J. in Phila
04-04-2013, 01:39 PM
Fired NCAA investigator, that had no involvement with the PSU case, criticizes Erickson. Rabid football fans cheer. ;)
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/04/04/3565598/ncaas-former-top-investigator.html
J. J. in Phila
04-05-2013, 08:02 AM
PS4RS now wants access to the communication between PSU and the NCAA:
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/04/05/3567121/alumni-group-demands-access-to.html
nittanylioness234
04-07-2013, 12:56 PM
Good luck with that, although it would be interesting to see how it all came about, considering that Emmert and Ray give conflicting reports.
Reader
04-17-2013, 12:14 PM
Hearing set on NCAA request to dismiss governor's antitrust lawsuit over Penn State penalties
http://www.startribune.com/sports/203397681.html
U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane on Tuesday scheduled oral argument for May 1, nearly four months after the Republican governor filed a lawsuit over the NCAA's penalties against Penn State.
Little more at link....
J. J. in Phila
04-23-2013, 12:46 PM
I was looking at the earlier posts on this thread. These sanctions were suppose to destroy PSU football. PSU had a winning team this year. :)
I think that speaks to the appropriateness of the sanctions.
Reader
05-03-2013, 01:37 PM
Judge delays hearing over dismissal of Corbett’s lawsuit against NCAA over Penn State sanctions
Federal Judge Yvette Kane delayed the hearing, set for Wednesday morning in the federal courthouse in Harrisburg, because of plans to attend a funeral for the late Chief U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster.
The hearing has been rescheduled for 2 p.m. May 20 in courtroom No. 1 of the federal courthouse in Harrisburg.
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/04/29/3598448/judge-delays-hearing-over-dismissal.html#storylink=cpy
nittanylioness234
05-20-2013, 06:43 PM
Judge expects to rule within a few weeks as to whether the Corbett/NCAA lawsuit will be dismissed or allowed to continue. She seems to have a bit of a sense of humor, stating that the 2 sides are not "in the same stadium."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/05/us_judge_vows_a_federal_judge.html#incart_river
Meanwhile, a least 5 trustees attended, and the lawyer representing Corbett thought his team of 4 did well:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/05/corbett_ncaa_lawsuit_penn_stat.html
Rlaub44
06-13-2013, 11:29 PM
I was looking at the earlier posts on this thread. These sanctions were suppose to destroy PSU football. PSU had a winning team this year. :)
I think that speaks to the appropriateness of the sanctions.
Reviewing some old posts, and ran across this, which I must have glossed over at the time.
I don't think this, the first year of the four-year sanction period, will be the true test. All athletes who were already on scholarship were able to keep them; however, for the next three years they will have twenty fewer scholarships to offer prospective student-athletes, making it likely more difficult to attract high-level talent, and clearly, PSU will not be able to stockpile as many premium athletes as other major Division I programs.
In addition, there is no question that this past season was a surprise to almost everyone. Nobody could have predicted the impact that Coach O'Brien and the core group of seniors led by Zordich and Mauti had on team morale. Without them, and facing the loss of Silas Redd, Anthony Fera and others, a .500 record looked optimistic to many observers.
Coach O'Brien is a terrific motivator and has proven to be a success at developing players (who would have thought a year ago that Matt McGloin would have had any chance with the NFL?), but the next three years will be a better picture of the true effects of the sanctions.
J. J. in Phila
06-13-2013, 11:35 PM
Reviewing some old posts, and ran across this, which I must have glossed over at the time.
I don't think this, the first year of the four-year sanction period, will be the true test. All athletes who were already on scholarship were able to keep them; however, for the next three years they will have twenty fewer scholarships to offer prospective student-athletes, making it likely more difficult to attract high-level talent, and clearly, PSU will not be able to stockpile as many premium athletes as other major Division I programs.
In addition, there is no question that this past season was a surprise to almost everyone. Nobody could have predicted the impact that Coach O'Brien and the core group of seniors led by Zordich and Mauti had on team morale. Without them, and facing the loss of Silas Redd, Anthony Fera and others, a .500 record looked optimistic to many observers.
Coach O'Brien is a terrific motivator and has proven to be a success at developing players (who would have thought a year ago that Matt McGloin would have had any chance with the NFL?), but the next three years will be a better picture of the true effects of the sanctions.
Conversely, someone starting at PSU in 2013 may realize that will have a very good shot at a bowl birth in 2017, his senior year.
Rlaub44
06-13-2013, 11:55 PM
Because of the discussion in the other thread about the NCAA sanctions, I was reading some old material and found this quote from Emmert at the press conference:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Can you speak to the decision to vacate the wins from '98 to 2011, and what does that say about Coach Paterno as being the winningest coach?
MARK EMMERT: Well, obviously, the 1998 date was selected because that's when the first reported incidents of abuse occurred and that's when the failure to respond appropriately began. And that was the point of time from which one could make an argument, of course, that the failures began inside the institution.
So it seemed to both me and to the Executive Committee that that was the appropriate beginning date. Again, I'll leave what it says about individuals to others to speculate on. The University's failures, in this case, began at that point in time and that's why that date was selected.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
While I understand why the NCAA needed to take a stand in this matter, this is still the piece of the sanction package that, to me, is wrong-headed, flies in the face of all of the evidence that we have, and makes the sanctions appear unjust. It's basically a meaningless penalty anyway, but vacating the wins was clearly a feel-good attack on Coach Paterno.
I know we have all discussed this before, but re-reading it brought back my incredulousness. 1998 was reported to every agency it could have been, and Sandusky was cleared by LE and DPW; I just cannot agree that the University failed to respond to the '98 report, which was never even within the purview of the athletic department or PSU administrators.
J. J. in Phila
06-14-2013, 12:15 AM
Respectfully snipped.
While I understand why the NCAA needed to take a stand in this matter, this is still the piece of the sanction package that, to me, is wrong-headed, flies in the face of all of the evidence that we have, and makes the sanctions appear unjust. It's basically a meaningless penalty anyway, but vacating the wins was clearly a feel-good attack on Coach Paterno.
I know we have all discussed this before, but re-reading it brought back my incredulousness. 1998 was reported to every agency it could have been, and Sandusky was cleared by LE and DPW; I just cannot agree that the University failed to respond to the '98 report, which was never even within the purview of the athletic department or PSU administrators.
Based on the Freeh report, solely, I agree. I thought the conclusions there were overreaching.
I am worried, however, that there was more contact between PSU and LE, especially the Centre County DA's Office in 1998, though not necessarily with Paterno.
nittanylioness234
06-14-2013, 11:50 AM
Because of the discussion in the other thread about the NCAA sanctions, I was reading some old material and found this quote from Emmert at the press conference:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Can you speak to the decision to vacate the wins from '98 to 2011, and what does that say about Coach Paterno as being the winningest coach?
MARK EMMERT: Well, obviously, the 1998 date was selected because that's when the first reported incidents of abuse occurred and that's when the failure to respond appropriately began. And that was the point of time from which one could make an argument, of course, that the failures began inside the institution.
So it seemed to both me and to the Executive Committee that that was the appropriate beginning date. Again, I'll leave what it says about individuals to others to speculate on. The University's failures, in this case, began at that point in time and that's why that date was selected.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
While I understand why the NCAA needed to take a stand in this matter, this is still the piece of the sanction package that, to me, is wrong-headed, flies in the face of all of the evidence that we have, and makes the sanctions appear unjust. It's basically a meaningless penalty anyway, but vacating the wins was clearly a feel-good attack on Coach Paterno.
I know we have all discussed this before, but re-reading it brought back my incredulousness. 1998 was reported to every agency it could have been, and Sandusky was cleared by LE and DPW; I just cannot agree that the University failed to respond to the '98 report, which was never even within the purview of the athletic department or PSU administrators.
I agree, based on what we know now. But there is other evidence that has not been released yet, so maybe that holds the answer. It could be another shoe waiting to drop.
The other thing I found to be over the top was our "need" for an academic integrity monitor.
Rlaub44
06-14-2013, 11:38 PM
Respectfully snipped.
Based on the Freeh report, solely, I agree. I thought the conclusions there were overreaching.
I am worried, however, that there was more contact between PSU and LE, especially the Centre County DA's Office in 1998, though not necessarily with Paterno.
If there was, again, the responsibility lies with LE and the DA to control an offender, not the criminal's employer. We also have no reason to believe that the NCAA was privy to any secret information outside of the Freeh Report.
If there were additional contacts in 98, they were likely not a factor in the NCAA's decision to hold Penn State responsible for 98.
Thinking about it in that vein, PSU is punished for allowing the legal system to handle Sandusky in 1998, and also punished for handling him in-house 3 years later. While I agree with the latter, it is ironic that the former wasn't enough for the NCAA or the court of public opinion
I agree, based on what we know now. But there is other evidence that has not been released yet, so maybe that holds the answer. It could be another shoe waiting to drop.
The other thing I found to be over the top was our "need" for an academic integrity monitor.
I think his title is "Athletic" Integrity Monitor, because remember, despite above-average graduation rates, academic All-Americans, and no prior NCAA rule violations, Penn State has a Football culture problem, unlike North Carolina, where athletes can receive grades without even attending classes. :rolleyes:
J. J. in Phila
06-15-2013, 12:32 AM
Respectfully snipped.
If there was, again, the responsibility lies with LE and the DA to control an offender, not the criminal's employer. We also have no reason to believe that the NCAA was privy to any secret information outside of the Freeh Report.
If there were additional contacts in 98, they were likely not a factor in the NCAA's decision to hold Penn State responsible for 98.
Thinking about it in that vein, PSU is punished for allowing the legal system to handle Sandusky in 1998, and also punished for handling him in-house 3 years later. While I agree with the latter, it is ironic that the former wasn't enough for the NCAA or the court of public opinion
It depends what, if anything, that contact was.
If there was no contact, or the contact was that there was that Sandusky does not have a problem, that would not be an issue. The DA's Office and DPW were, in theory, the "experts."
If there was contact with the DA's that was that they wouldn't prosecute Sandusky, "if he received help for the problem," that would be a different matter.
First, it would be one the "experts" saying that there was a problem. Second, were they saying, in effect, that PSU should handle 1998 in-house. With either of these PSU officials would know that there was an existing problem when the 2001 incident happened.
1998 does loom large in that regard.
nittanylioness234
06-15-2013, 09:35 AM
Respectfully snipped.
[QUOTE=Rlaub44;9571222]If there was, again, the responsibility lies with LE and the DA to control an offender, not the criminal's employer. We also have no reason to believe that the NCAA was privy to any secret information outside of the Freeh Report.
But we know the Freeh group was also in contact with the Attorney General's office, so some information, at least generalities, may have been passed among the 3 groups.
Rlaub44
06-15-2013, 10:30 AM
Respectfully snipped.
It depends what, if anything, that contact was.
If there was no contact, or the contact was that there was that Sandusky does not have a problem, that would not be an issue. The DA's Office and DPW were, in theory, the "experts."
If there was contact with the DA's that was that they wouldn't prosecute Sandusky, "if he received help for the problem," that would be a different matter.
First, it would be one the "experts" saying that there was a problem. Second, were they saying, in effect, that PSU should handle 1998 in-house. With either of these PSU officials would know that there was an existing problem when the 2001 incident happened.
1998 does loom large in that regard.
I agree that PSU's knowledge of 98 weighs heavily on their actions in 2001, but I still have trouble with the concept that the DA would hold Penn State accountable to "make" a grown man seek treatment, or else PSU, not Sandusky, would be in trouble. What leverage would Penn State have to force Sandusky besides losing his job, which he left the following year anyway?
If Gricar, Ralston, and Schreffler felt Sandusky had a problem, it would be incumbent on them to meet with the individual himself, and offer the "either you get help, or we will x, y, z" speech. Had that happened, it should have come out at trial.
I would still view the lack of action following any potential meeting with Ganter or others as a failing of the DA/LE, not PSU. And again, unless Emmert is lying about what information they considered in developing the sanctions, they know no more about possible additional contacts than we do.
And in fairness, what could PSU have done in 98 that would have appeared suitable to the NCAA - reported to LE? LE knew before the school did. Called ChildLine? Again, had already occurred. Fired Sandusky? That should have been the Second Mile's place, as they were his access to the victims, while PSU only gave him access to a location. Without PSU, he would have continued to victimize kids in his basement, the public pool, or any of the places other pedophiles operate.
There is no rational defense of Emmert's statement regarding 1998.
Rlaub44
06-15-2013, 11:01 AM
Respectfully snipped.
If there was, again, the responsibility lies with LE and the DA to control an offender, not the criminal's employer. We also have no reason to believe that the NCAA was privy to any secret information outside of the Freeh Report.
But we know the Freeh group was also in contact with the Attorney General's office, so some information, at least generalities, may have been passed among the 3 groups.
That did happen between Freeh and the AG, but the NCAA stated in the Consent Decree:
"Therefore, without further investigation or response, the findings of the Criminal Jury and the Freeh Report establish a factual basis from which the NCAA concludes that Penn State breached the standards expected by and articulated in the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws."
We are now taking speculation to a second power - we don't know if there were any additional contacts in 1998 regarding Sandusky or what would have been said, and now we are speculating that the NCAA may have known about this meeting that may have occurred.
I think it is "more reasonable to conclude" (as Freeh was fond of saying) that the NCAA overreacted to make a strong statement, and as we have seen from numerous comment sections on PennLive and the CDT, if you question or disagree with the sanctions, you "support" child abuse, so the NCAA didn't expect to be challenged on anything, much less the legitimacy of using 1998 as the starting date for the punishments.
J. J. in Phila
06-15-2013, 02:45 PM
I agree that PSU's knowledge of 98 weighs heavily on their actions in 2001, but I still have trouble with the concept that the DA would hold Penn State accountable to "make" a grown man seek treatment, or else PSU, not Sandusky, would be in trouble. What leverage would Penn State have to force Sandusky besides losing his job, which he left the following year anyway?
If Gricar, Ralston, and Schreffler felt Sandusky had a problem, it would be incumbent on them to meet with the individual himself, and offer the "either you get help, or we will x, y, z" speech. Had that happened, it should have come out at trial.
Maybe not, if the decision was to go to PSU. He could lose his job, lose access to the facilities, and be destroyed in the community. There was leverage.
I would still view the lack of action following any potential meeting with Ganter or others as a failing of the DA/LE, not PSU. And again, unless Emmert is lying about what information they considered in developing the sanctions, they know no more about possible additional contacts than we do.
There would be no absolution for LE in this, but PSU would still have known about it, and did nothing.
And in fairness, what could PSU have done in 98 that would have appeared suitable to the NCAA - reported to LE? LE knew before the school did. Called ChildLine? Again, had already occurred. Fired Sandusky? That should have been the Second Mile's place, as they were his access to the victims, while PSU only gave him access to a location. Without PSU, he would have continued to victimize kids in his basement, the public pool, or any of the places other pedophiles operate.
There is no rational defense of Emmert's statement regarding 1998.
Fired Sandusky would be one. Removing his access to the facilities is another. There would also be a question of there was any pressure on LE by PSU.
We have a lot of unknowns.
Rlaub44
06-15-2013, 02:52 PM
We have a lot of unknowns.
Respectfully snipped:
Yes, there are many unknowns - the biggest one, overriding everything else, is this speculation about additional contacts between the sides in 1998. If there is nothing to that, the rest of this is utterly moot.
J. J. in Phila
06-15-2013, 04:36 PM
Respectfully snipped:
Yes, there are many unknowns - the biggest one, overriding everything else, is this speculation about additional contacts between the sides in 1998. If there is nothing to that, the rest of this is utterly moot.
I agree with you, but there are public suggestions of additional contact.
Rlaub44
06-16-2013, 09:37 AM
I agree with you, but there are public suggestions of additional contact.
Besides Ganim's report of Sloane finding that cryptic message on the Dictaphone about a meeting in October at the football building with Ganter, Gricar, Schreffler and Ralston, are there other reports you are aware of?
J. J. in Phila
06-16-2013, 11:14 AM
Besides Ganim's report of Sloane finding that cryptic message on the Dictaphone about a meeting in October at the football building with Ganter, Gricar, Schreffler and Ralston, are there other reports you are aware of?
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
nittanylioness234
06-16-2013, 05:59 PM
That's certainly cryptic!
Reader
06-17-2013, 12:17 AM
It seems to me the Freeh report on which the NCAA based the sanctions beginning in 1998, gives several reasons for this. I went back and picked a few, not all, of the quotes that specifically cited the individual and institutional failings most likely used. I believe the sanctions of Paterno's wins was part of holding the entire group of administrators and the institution itself responsible for all their failings, including those of the BOT. I know most here have read all of this before and it may be redundant, however, it needs to be emphasized that 1998 as a starting point for the NCAA did have legitimate reasons.
Page 39:
While no information indicates University leaders interfered with the investigation, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley were kept informed of the investigation. ........
Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley did not even speak to Sandusky about his conduct on May 3, 1998 in the Lasch Building. Despite their knowledge of the criminal investigation of Sandusky, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley took no action to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State facilities or took any measures to protect children on their campuses.
Spanier and Schultz failed to report the 1998 investigation to the Board of Trustees. Sandusky was convicted of several assaults that occurred after the 1998 incident. Some of these sexual assaults against young boys might have been prevented had Sandusky been prohibited from bringing minors to University facilities and University football bowl games.
****
Pages 50, 51:
Harmon's [PSU/LE] message to Schultz did not mention that Sandusky was told not to shower with children. ........
Schultz's message to Curley and Spanier also did not mention that Sandusky was advised not to shower with children. Neither Harmon nor Schultz's emails set forth, or suggest, that they planned to discuss the incident with Sandusky, to review or monitor his use of University facilities, to discuss his role at the Second Mile and his involvement in Second Mile overnight programs operated in Penn State facilities, or to consider the propriety of a continuing connection between Penn State and the Second Mile. There also is no mention of whether Sandusky should receive counseling.l
Further, the emails do not indicate that any officials attempted to determine whether Sandusky's conduct violated existing University policy or was reportable under The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. ? 1092(f) ("Clery Act"). The emails also do not indicate if any person responsible for Penn State's risk management examined Sandusky's conduct. A risk management review might have resulted in the University providing contractual notice to its insurers about the incident, imposition of a general ban on the presence of children in the Lasch Building, or other limitations on Sandusky's activities.m
After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno. 166 Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew "everything that was going on." 167 As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of his football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky.
Nothing in the record indicates that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno or Curley spoke directly with Sandusky about the allegation, monitored his activities, contacted the Office of Human Resources for guidance, or took, or documented, any personnel actions concerning this incident in any official University file. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that no effort was made to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State.........
[In 2001] For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999. Among these connections was that he would have continuing "[a]ccess to training and workout facilities." A handwritten note on this proposal reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability problems." Exhibit 2-G (Control Number JVP000027). l
*****
Page 101:
A. The Board's Failure of Oversight and Reasonable Inquiry in 1998 and 2001
In 1998 and 2001, the Penn State Board failed to exercise its oversight functions. In that time, the Board did not have regular reporting procedures or committee structures in place to ensure disclosure to the Board of major risks.
Because the Board did not demand regular reporting of these risks, Spanier and other senior University officials in this period did not bring up the Sandusky investigations. For example, the Board met in May 1998 and March 2001, but was not advised by Spanier regarding the Sandusky incidents.
While Spanier failed to disclose these facts, the Board has a continuing obligation to require information about such an important matters.......
Some Trustees reported that their meetings felt "scripted" or that they were "rubber stamping" major decisions already made by Spanier and a smaller group of Trustees."565 Sometimes Trustees learned of the President's decisions in public meetings where there were no questions or discussions.566
****
Page 108 and 109:
B. "Collaborative Relationship" Between Penn State and Second Mile
An article posted on the University's website on July 1, 1999 announced Sandusky's retirement. In this article, Curley stated that Sandusky is "the founder of Second Mile ... [and] will continue to offer his services on a volunteer basis to the athletic department's Lifeskills and Outreach programs."616
In the same announcement, Paterno praised Sandusky for his contributions to the University's football program and stated that Sandusky was "... a person of great character and integrity.".......
In Sandusky's retirement agreement with the University, both parties agreed to "work collaboratively" in community outreach programs such as the Second Mile.619 The collaboration took several forms. Penn State football staff and players helped Sandusky with annual Second Mile Golf Tournaments held at the Penn State golf course(s) from 2003 to 2011.620
Each year the Second Mile distributed playing cards that displayed both Penn State and Second Mile logos and contained images of Penn State football players, coaches and other student-athletes. A number of the University's football players and other student-athletes routinely volunteered for Second Mile youth programs.
In addition, in February 2009, Schultz contacted a bank on behalf of Sandusky and the Second Mile. Schultz advised the bank "the Second Mile is raising funds to support an expansion of their facilities here in State College.... Would you be agreeable to meet with Jerry Sandusky ... and me? They are really good people and this is a great cause related to kids."621 Bank officials agreed to meet with Sandusky.622
The University's visible support of the Second Mile provided Sandusky with numerous opportunities to bring young boys to campus and to interact with them through various camps and activities. C. Second Mile Camps on Penn State Campuses Between 1999 and 2008, the Second Mile operated six one-week long summer youth camps at the University Park campus as well as at other non-University locations. 108
Sandusky operated numerous summer youth camps at various Commonwealth campuses through Second Mile and his own corporation, Sandusky and Associates.623 At the University Park campus, camp activities were held at various locations including classrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, athletic fields and football facilities.624 Sandusky frequently visited the boys' camps during the swimming pool activity in the afternoon, and the night sessions, which were usually held in one of the football meeting rooms. 625
Second Mile also offered a "Friend Program," a mentorship program that matched a college volunteer with an at-risk elementary student.626 The Friend Program events took place in Blair, Centre, Clinton and Lancaster counties as well as in the Lehigh Valley and other locations in Pennsylvania. The Friend Program events included picnics, holiday parties, swimming and bowling. 627
Sandusky sometimes participated in the Friend Program at the Altoona campus. When he did, Sandusky often arrived accompanied by a boy from Second Mile who was not part of the invited group.628 According to a Director of Programs for Second Mile, the last time he saw Sandusky participate in any Second Mile activities was in 2008.629 109
****
Page 127:
CHAPTER 10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE, ADMINISTRATION, AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN UNIVERSITY FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
The failure of President Graham B. Spanier ("Spanier"), Senior Vice President - Finance and Business ("SVP-FB") Gary C. Schultz ("Schultz"), Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno ("Paterno") and Athletic Director ("AD") Timothy M. Curley ("Curley") to protect children by allowing Gerald A. Sandusky ("Sandusky") unrestricted and uncontrolled access to Pennsylvania State University ("Penn State" or "University") facilities reveals numerous individual failings, but it also reveals weaknesses of the University's culture, governance, administration, compliance policies and procedures for protecting children.
It is critical for institutions and organizations that provide programs and facilities for children to institute and adhere to practices that have been found to be effective in reducing the risk of abuse. Equally important is the need for the leaders of those institutions and organizations to govern in ways that reflect the ethics and values of those entities.
Rlaub44
06-17-2013, 08:06 AM
It seems to me the Freeh report on which the NCAA based the sanctions beginning in 1998, gives several reasons for this. I went back and picked a few, not all, of the quotes that specifically cited the individual and institutional failings most likely used. I believe the sanctions of Paterno's wins was part of holding the entire group of administrators and the institution itself responsible for all their failings, including those of the BOT. I know most here have read all of this before and it may be redundant, however, it needs to be emphasized that 1998 as a starting point for the NCAA did have legitimate reasons.
Snipped for length:
Thank you for taking the time to research this. Of the passages you provided, I feel that a few don't apply except in hindsight.
For example, the Clery Act is to report crimes committed on campus, but as we all know, the DA determined in 1998 that no charges would be filed; so in the eyes of the law, no crime was deemed to have occurred. PSU administrators had no reason to believe Gricar was wrong in his determination, so they had no reason (at that time) to file a Clery Report.
Also, the limited information they were given indicated that the situation was simply an error in judgment by Sandusky, who was cleared by the DA and DPW, so again, without our current knowledge to guide them, it is hard to fault the University for not limiting his access to facilities based on him having been "exonerated" at the time.
The sections concerning the University leaders' treatment of Sandusky at and after his retirement, again, assumes knowledge of his character that at the time, nobody had. At that time, he was still St. Jerry to most of the community for the work he did with at-risk youths, and the administrators and Paterno couldn't have known that the 98 investigation that showed poor judgment missed the true nature of his evil intentions, despite the inferences in Freeh that Paterno knew everything.
The one thing that I agree should have been done at that time was notification of the BOT. As JJ has pointed out based on the way the board was structured at the time, the only person who could have done that was Spanier, and apparently he liked to closely control the flow of information to the board. That is a governance issue, but not related to athletic competition (the realm of the NCAA).
Reader
06-17-2013, 09:50 AM
Snipped for length:
Thank you for taking the time to research this. Of the passages you provided, I feel that a few don't apply except in hindsight.
For example, the Clery Act is to report crimes committed on campus, but as we all know, the DA determined in 1998 that no charges would be filed; so in the eyes of the law, no crime was deemed to have occurred. PSU administrators had no reason to believe Gricar was wrong in his determination, so they had no reason (at that time) to file a Clery Report.
Also, the limited information they were given indicated that the situation was simply an error in judgment by Sandusky, who was cleared by the DA and DPW, so again, without our current knowledge to guide them, it is hard to fault the University for not limiting his access to facilities based on him having been "exonerated" at the time.
The sections concerning the University leaders' treatment of Sandusky at and after his retirement, again, assumes knowledge of his character that at the time, nobody had. At that time, he was still St. Jerry to most of the community for the work he did with at-risk youths, and the administrators and Paterno couldn't have known that the 98 investigation that showed poor judgment missed the true nature of his evil intentions, despite the inferences in Freeh that Paterno knew everything.
The one thing that I agree should have been done at that time was notification of the BOT. As JJ has pointed out based on the way the board was structured at the time, the only person who could have done that was Spanier, and apparently he liked to closely control the flow of information to the board. That is a governance issue, but not related to athletic competition (the realm of the NCAA).
What you say may be true as far as hindsight for the knowledge at the time, however, this is concerning what the NCAA used as a bases for beginning their sanctions with 1998. They used the Freeh report and from the comments of Emmert and quotes from the consent agreement, these items seem to me to be some of the 'failures' included in their decision.
J. J. in Phila
06-17-2013, 10:43 AM
In relation to the Clery Act, I think PSU (or any school) had an obligation to report the incident under that act, even if there were no charges.
Now, that said, it was a University wide problem, not a football or Athletic Department problem.
J. J. in Phila
06-17-2013, 10:52 AM
Respectfully snipped.
The one thing that I agree should have been done at that time was notification of the BOT. As JJ has pointed out based on the way the board was structured at the time, the only person who could have done that was Spanier, and apparently he liked to closely control the flow of information to the board. That is a governance issue, but not related to athletic competition (the realm of the NCAA).
I do agree that the structure and inordinate about of control the president exercised was a problem. That is a matter of administrative control, because the BoT established that rule. It entered into the NCAA sphere were the incident involved a then employee of the football program, and the athletic director.
Here, you have a president for suppressing evidence going to the Board, and the Board for authorizing it to happen.
Rlaub44
06-17-2013, 11:02 PM
In relation to the Clery Act, I think PSU (or any school) had an obligation to report the incident under that act, even if there were no charges.
Now, that said, it was a University wide problem, not a football or Athletic Department problem.
Pg 33-34 of this link covers what "reported offenses" must be counted under Clery, whether charged or not.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf
We may think what occurred was a sex offense, but the police report, under Incident/Offense, used the classification "Administrative Information", so it was never given an offense title to classify/count under Clery.
Rlaub44
06-17-2013, 11:10 PM
What you say may be true as far as hindsight for the knowledge at the time, however, this is concerning what the NCAA used as a bases for beginning their sanctions with 1998. They used the Freeh report and from the comments of Emmert and quotes from the consent agreement, these items seem to me to be some of the 'failures' included in their decision.
You are correct, Reader, and the unfortunate truth is that by accepting the Freeh Report without rebuttal or correction, the Board accepted by default all of the things Freeh identified as failings, some which were inaccurate, IMO. That opened the door for the NCAA to use those accepted failings in setting the sanctions.
J. J. in Phila
06-17-2013, 11:15 PM
Pg 33-34 of this link covers what "reported offenses" must be counted under Clery, whether charged or not.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf
We may think what occurred was a sex offense, but the police report, under Incident/Offense, used the classification "Administrative Information", so it was never given an offense title to classify/count under Clery.
Yes, and it should not have been. That is part of the problem. Now that was not Paterno's doing, but it was a problem of the PSU administration, a lack of administrative control.
We can look at FSU's Bobby Bowden. There were sanctions which included a vacation of some of his wins; he was never involved nor had knowledge of the violations.
Rlaub44
06-17-2013, 11:23 PM
Respectfully snipped.
I do agree that the structure and inordinate about of control the president exercised was a problem. That is a matter of administrative control, because the BoT established that rule. It entered into the NCAA sphere were the incident involved a then employee of the football program, and the athletic director.
Here, you have a president for suppressing evidence going to the Board, and the Board for authorizing it to happen.
The employee was also a faculty member in the Department of Physical Education, and at the time of the incident, he was not acting in either capacity, but as a representative of the Second Mile organization.
Yes, Spanier should probably have alerted the board to the police report, but in thinking more about it, it becomes entwined with the DPW investigation, which is a confidential matter and may not be shared with others unless the matter is adjudicated and is classified as founded. If the employee were truly innocent, the law is written to protect that person from repercussions of a false allegation. In this case, it protected a guilty person, but that is not the fault of PSU, and certainly did not provide enough competitive advantage to the football program to warrant a forfeiture of all of their wins for that 4-year period. Again, IMO.
Rlaub44
06-17-2013, 11:30 PM
Yes, and it should not have been. That is part of the problem. Now that was not Paterno's doing, but it was a problem of the PSU administration, a lack of administrative control.
No, Harmon indicated he made that decision to keep the file out of public record. The University Police, as you know, are a fully-functioning police department, and while they reported to Schultz during his tenure, there has never been a suggestion that he or any University administrator had control over the investigative decisions made by the department.
Certainly, I don't think any police chief runs those day-to-day decisions by the VP of Finance and Business for approval. :twocents:
Rlaub44
06-17-2013, 11:35 PM
We can look at FSU's Bobby Bowden. There were sanctions which included a vacation of some of his wins; he was never involved nor had knowledge of the violations.
The use of ineligible players due to academic fraud is a clear example of an athletic program gaining a competitive advantage due to a traditional NCAA violation. I don't think the two cases are comparable, other than the fact that the violation wasn't committed by either coach.
J. J. in Phila
06-17-2013, 11:54 PM
The use of ineligible players due to academic fraud is a clear example of an athletic program gaining a competitive advantage due to a traditional NCAA violation. I don't think the two cases are comparable, other than the fact that the violation wasn't committed by either coach.
Both were violations of the NCAA's rules, as previously noted.
J. J. in Phila
06-17-2013, 11:59 PM
The employee was also a faculty member in the Department of Physical Education, and at the time of the incident, he was not acting in either capacity, but as a representative of the Second Mile organization.
Yes, Spanier should probably have alerted the board to the police report, but in thinking more about it, it becomes entwined with the DPW investigation, which is a confidential matter and may not be shared with others unless the matter is adjudicated and is classified as founded. If the employee were truly innocent, the law is written to protect that person from repercussions of a false allegation. In this case, it protected a guilty person, but that is not the fault of PSU, and certainly did not provide enough competitive advantage to the football program to warrant a forfeiture of all of their wins for that 4-year period. Again, IMO.
Well, that is a matter of judgment on if it should have gone to the BoT. The NCAA can judge the circumstances, and did. Now, you can disagree with their judgment, and I actually would on that aspect, but not their right to make it.
What DPW did is subject to confidentiality. What happened, however, was not. That employment matter, could have been brought to the BoT.
J. J. in Phila
06-18-2013, 12:04 AM
Respectfully snipped.
The employee was also a faculty member in the Department of Physical Education, and at the time of the incident, he was not acting in either capacity, but as a representative of the Second Mile organization.
So, if a professor punched a student outside of class, in a hallway, that wouldn't be subject of proper discipline? The department head or dean, shouldn't become involved, even though it happened on PSU property? Do you expect any of us to buy that?
Rlaub44
06-18-2013, 05:20 AM
Respectfully snipped.
So, if a professor punched a student outside of class, in a hallway, that wouldn't be subject of proper discipline? The department head or dean, shouldn't become involved, even though it happened on PSU property? Do you expect any of us to buy that?
In line with the thread title, and in response to your post, my comments were regarding the incident providing sufficient reason for the NCAA sanctions, not regarding discipline by the University if appropriate. Please don't confuse the issues, as they are separate.
Rlaub44
06-18-2013, 05:25 AM
Well, that is a matter of judgment on if it should have gone to the BoT. The NCAA can judge the circumstances, and did. Now, you can disagree with their judgment, and I actually would on that aspect, but not their right to make it.
What DPW did is subject to confidentiality. What happened, however, was not. That employment matter, could have been brought to the BoT.
It isn't so clear-cut. What happened was the subject of said DPW investigation, and the University officials had no independent knowledge of Sandusky's actions other than what Schultz was told by Harmon. LE and DPW were investigating jointly, and it is easy to understand that the administrators might not have known what information if any they were allowed to share.
J. J. in Phila
06-18-2013, 10:53 AM
In line with the thread title, and in response to your post, my comments were regarding the incident providing sufficient reason for the NCAA sanctions, not regarding discipline by the University if appropriate. Please don't confuse the issues, as they are separate.
You are the one that brought the "representative" issue up. A school employee's, as Sandusky was in 1998, conduct within the facility is obviously subject to the school's administrative control. If Sandusky would take a day off, come into the office, and do something improper, just because he wasn't on the clock would not prevent the school from regulating that.
That is the crux of the administrative control issue.
J. J. in Phila
06-18-2013, 11:12 AM
It isn't so clear-cut. What happened was the subject of said DPW investigation, and the University officials had no independent knowledge of Sandusky's actions other than what Schultz was told by Harmon. LE and DPW were investigating jointly, and it is easy to understand that the administrators might not have known what information if any they were allowed to share.
Schultz and Harmon are University officials.
Now you can make the argument (in a logical sense of an argument) that, in 1998, PSU relied on the experts, based on the information in the Freeh Report. Now, unless and until there is more information on the issue, you can make the the argument the "experts" didn't find anything.
You can just as well, make the argument that PSU, internally, should have taken some investigative steps, like talking to Sandusky.
Personally, I would buy the first argument, but I also realize the second argument is there. The NCAA is free to make the judgment that they should have done the second.
nittanylioness234
06-18-2013, 11:57 AM
PSU should have done the second, even if there was no finding of a "crime." There should have been a corrective action, that Sandusky was not to bring children to PSU showers alone. At the very least. I would go further, and say he should not bring children, alone, to ANY PSU facility. And if that wasn't a university wide rule at the time, they could have made one.
Rlaub44
06-18-2013, 07:30 PM
You are the one that brought the "representative" issue up. A school employee's, as Sandusky was in 1998, conduct within the facility is obviously subject to the school's administrative control. If Sandusky would take a day off, come into the office, and do something improper, just because he wasn't on the clock would not prevent the school from regulating that.
That is the crux of the administrative control issue.
The reason I mentioned which capacity he was acting in at the time of the abuse was because we were discussing the NCAA vacating the football team's wins from 1998 onward, based on the University's response to the 1998 report.
His actions, disgusting as they were, were not conducted as a football coach. He was a Second Mile mentor, in his official capacity with a Second Mile youth, who happened to have access to Lasch Building because he also happened to be a member of the PSU football staff. If he hadn't taken the boy there, they could have showered together at White Building, IM Building, or Rec Hall.
The "institutional control" aspect would come into play if Penn State officials failed to keep the football program in check in 1998. That has never been suggested by anyone, with the possible exception of your hints that you have inside information about additional contacts with LE. Freeh admitted that the University cooperated fully with the 1998 investigation, and there was no evidence that they attempted to influence the outcome, a feeling that was echoed by Schreffler. And while Sandusky's actions off-duty would absolutely be subject to discipline through the University system, at the conclusion of the investigation, there was no determination that he had broken any laws or any University policies. Again, hindsight makes it seem obvious that they should have restricted his access at that time, but at that time it was a misunderstanding that had been handled by LE and DPW and was behind them, as I believe Schultz commented.
And to return to your earlier comparison with Bobby Bowden and FSU, think of the purpose of vacating those Seminole wins. The team played and won those games with players who were ineligible due to academic fraud. Since the players were not eligible to play, vacating those wins is an appropriate consequence, since the team gained a unfair competitive advantage by using those players.
Penn State's wins from 1998-2001 were played within the rules of athletic competition, with legally fielded teams, and nothing gave them an unfair advantage just because Spanier didn't update the trustees on Sandusky's investigation and subsequent clearance. Vacating those victories is arbitrary and capricious, and it diminishes the relevance of that sanction.
Rlaub44
06-18-2013, 07:42 PM
Schultz and Harmon are University officials.
Now you can make the argument (in a logical sense of an argument) that, in 1998, PSU relied on the experts, based on the information in the Freeh Report. Now, unless and until there is more information on the issue, you can make the the argument the "experts" didn't find anything.
You can just as well, make the argument that PSU, internally, should have taken some investigative steps, like talking to Sandusky.
Personally, I would buy the first argument, but I also realize the second argument is there. The NCAA is free to make the judgment that they should have done the second.
The NCAA is free to do whatever they choose - that much is obvious. My argument is just that vacating the wins from 98-01, while within the power of the NCAA, is in my opinion, illogical grandstanding and piling on with a sanction that, again in my opinion, doesn't fit the facts in the matter.
That's why I would never argue that the Corbett or Paterno lawsuits had any chance to succeed. The NCAA has broad latitude to choose how to deal with their member schools; but that doesn't mean they are immune from overreaching, which is what I think they did here.
J. J. in Phila
06-18-2013, 08:13 PM
The NCAA is free to do whatever they choose - that much is obvious. My argument is just that vacating the wins from 98-01, while within the power of the NCAA, is in my opinion, illogical grandstanding and piling on with a sanction that, again in my opinion, doesn't fit the facts in the matter.
That's why I would never argue that the Corbett or Paterno lawsuits had any chance to succeed. The NCAA has broad latitude to choose how to deal with their member schools; but that doesn't mean they are immune from overreaching, which is what I think they did here.
Well, based on what Freeh has reported publicly, I'll agree that a reasonable outcome included was not vacating the 1998-2000 wins. However, that is a judgment call. There is logic and reasonableness is saying, in effect, "PSU, you should have, as employers, investigated this incident, since it was serious enough to trigger a criminal investigation." I would not call it, "illogical grandstanding and piling on." I may have found differently, but it was reasonable.
Rlaub44
06-18-2013, 09:10 PM
Well, based on what Freeh has reported publicly, I'll agree that a reasonable outcome included was not vacating the 1998-2000 wins. However, that is a judgment call. There is logic and reasonableness is saying, in effect, "PSU, you should have, as employers, investigated this incident, since it was serious enough to trigger a criminal investigation." I would not call it, "illogical grandstanding and piling on." I may have found differently, but it was reasonable.
Being that vacating wins is typically used in situations where the violation affected competition (eligibility, recruiting, booster payments), what is your opinion of using that sanction in addressing what the NCAA thinks PSU should have done in 1998?
In my earlier post about FSU, it is easy to connect the consequence to the violation, as they games that were violated were not played under the NCAA rules of competition.
I recognize that the NCAA is limited in how to penalize PSU for 1998, but nothing the University did in responding to the police investigation that year gave them unfair advantage on the field for the next four years.
Twindad
06-18-2013, 09:16 PM
Without the combination of PSU and TSM, I don't think JS would have ever been able to commit the amount of crimes he did. Without the allure of being the coach, he could have never lured all those children away nor had the community so willingly turned a blind eye.
The sanctions against PSU will be soon forgotten by most and it will return to business as usual. Vacating the wins doesn't change anything but the page in the record book.
J. J. in Phila
06-18-2013, 09:34 PM
Being that vacating wins is typically used in situations where the violation affected competition (eligibility, recruiting, booster payments), what is your opinion of using that sanction in addressing what the NCAA thinks PSU should have done in 1998?
In my earlier post about FSU, it is easy to connect the consequence to the violation, as they games that were violated were not played under the NCAA rules of competition.
I recognize that the NCAA is limited in how to penalize PSU for 1998, but nothing the University did in responding to the police investigation that year gave them unfair advantage on the field for the next four years.
The unfair advantage test is not required for sanctions. In that case, 1998-2000, it could be lack of administrative control. It also could be the "exemplar clause," that personnel in the athletic department have a standard higher that of an average citizen.
Rlaub44
06-18-2013, 10:09 PM
The unfair advantage test is not required for sanctions. In that case, 1998-2000, it could be lack of administrative control. It also could be the "exemplar clause," that personnel in the athletic department have a standard higher that of an average citizen.
I understand - I was asking what you thought about using the particular sanction of vacating victories.
In the past, it has been what behavioral scientists refer to as a "logical consequence", because it follows logically that if you used unfair advantages to win a game, you should have that win taken away from you.
This time it was used as a punishment. The sanctions already included remedial measures to correct the institutional control issues, such as the Athletic Integrity Monitor, following all of the recommendations for change from the Freeh Report, and more, so I have trouble seeing how taking victories from the 1998-2001 teams and their late coach fits with the perceived "failings" in 1998.
J. J. in Phila
06-18-2013, 10:23 PM
I understand - I was asking what you thought about using the particular sanction of vacating victories.
In the past, it has been what behavioral scientists refer to as a "logical consequence", because it follows logically that if you used unfair advantages to win a game, you should have that win taken away from you.
This time it was used as a punishment. The sanctions already included remedial measures to correct the institutional control issues, such as the Athletic Integrity Monitor, following all of the recommendations for change from the Freeh Report, and more, so I have trouble seeing how taking victories from the 1998-2001 teams and their late coach fits with the perceived "failings" in 1998.
First, it is not about the players, and may not be about the coach.
Yes, as a means of enforcing institutional control, it is reasonable. It serves as a deterrent to future PSU administrators, and to those in other schools. Even to other coaches, who may say, **I don't want my victories vacated like Paterno or Bowden. I'm going to march into the AD's or president's office and make sure they are handling it properly.**
J. J. in Phila
06-18-2013, 10:25 PM
Without the combination of PSU and TSM, I don't think JS would have ever been able to commit the amount of crimes he did. Without the allure of being the coach, he could have never lured all those children away nor had the community so willingly turned a blind eye.
The sanctions against PSU will be soon forgotten by most and it will return to business as usual. Vacating the wins doesn't change anything but the page in the record book.
I think that is a key point. It will only change the school's and coach's records, not the players.
Reader
06-19-2013, 02:19 AM
You are correct, Reader, and the unfortunate truth is that by accepting the Freeh Report without rebuttal or correction, the Board accepted by default all of the things Freeh identified as failings, some which were inaccurate, IMO. That opened the door for the NCAA to use those accepted failings in setting the sanctions.
Do we know that the BOT could have rebutted Freeh's report? Is there a copy of their contract? Maybe by terms of the contract they agreed to accept his findings whatever they were?
J. J. in Phila
06-19-2013, 09:21 AM
You are correct, Reader, and the unfortunate truth is that by accepting the Freeh Report without rebuttal or correction, the Board accepted by default all of the things Freeh identified as failings, some which were inaccurate, IMO. That opened the door for the NCAA to use those accepted failings in setting the sanctions.
I think that something should be clear here. When Freeh reported, he did so for information. The BoT neither accepted, rejected, or took any action, on the report and none was required.
nittanylioness234
06-19-2013, 09:40 AM
Do we know that the BOT could have rebutted Freeh's report? Is there a copy of their contract? Maybe by terms of the contract they agreed to accept his findings whatever they were?
Copy of engagement agreement, which does not mention any restriction of rebuttal:
http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/FreehSporkinSullivanEngagementLetter.pdf
J. J. in Phila
06-19-2013, 10:12 AM
Copy of engagement agreement, which does not mention any restriction of rebuttal:
http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/FreehSporkinSullivanEngagementLetter.pdf
The BoT would be completely free to adopt a motion saying that they agree with all of the points in the Freeh, disagree with all the points in the Freeh report, or agree with some and disagree with some. There is no requirement that they do anything with it.
Rlaub44
06-19-2013, 05:30 PM
I think that something should be clear here. When Freeh reported, he did so for information. The BoT neither accepted, rejected, or took any action, on the report and none was required.
While this is correct, one could argue that the board tacitly accepted the report when Peetz stated at the press conference following the release of the report that the board "accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred."
Or when they accepted the NCAA sanctions that were based solely on that report.
Or in releasing the report to the public without rebuttal or correction. Remember that the Freeh report was designed as an internal review. By allowing that internal review to become a public document without adding any response or counter, the report can be seen as speaking for the University.
It is true that no formal action was taken, but in refusing to revisit the report, it is clear that they accepted it by default.
J. J. in Phila
06-19-2013, 05:50 PM
While this is correct, one could argue that the board tacitly accepted the report when Peetz stated at the press conference following the release of the report that the board "accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred."
Or when they accepted the NCAA sanctions that were based solely on that report.
Or in releasing the report to the public without rebuttal or correction. Remember that the Freeh report was designed as an internal review. By allowing that internal review to become a public document without adding any response or counter, the report can be seen as speaking for the University.
It is true that no formal action was taken, but in refusing to revisit the report, it is clear that they accepted it by default.
The report itself in nothing other than the result of an internal investigation, which may or may not be complete. The NCAA thought it was complete enough to a sufficient internal investigation.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0